DocketNumber: Nos. 2005-L-160, 2005-L-161.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 3773
Judges: WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J.
Filed Date: 7/21/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On January 7, 2005, Aston was indicted on eight counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. This indictment was assigned case No. 05 CR 000017. On May 27, 2005, Aston was indicted on two counts of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of criminal tools. This indictment was assigned case No. 05 CR 000109. The conduct alleged in case No. 05 CR 000109 occurred subsequent to the indictment being filed in 05 CR 000017.
{¶ 3} In case No. 05 CR 000017, Aston pled guilty to three counts of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} In case No. 05 CR 000109, Aston pled guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 5} In case No. 05 CR 000017, the trial court sentenced Aston to one-year prison terms for each of her three convictions for trafficking in cocaine. In addition, the trial court sentenced Aston to a three-year prison term for her conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. These terms were ordered to be served concurrently to each other. However, the aggregate three-year sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the two-year sentence imposed in case No. 05 CR 000109.
{¶ 6} In case No. 05 CR 000109, the trial court sentenced Aston to a two-year prison term on the third-degree felony conviction for trafficking in cocaine. Aston was sentenced to an eighteen-month term for her fourth-degree felony conviction for trafficking in cocaine. These prison terms were ordered to be served concurrently to each other. However, the aggregate two-year sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the three-year sentence imposed in case No. 05 CR 000017.
{¶ 7} Aston's total prison term from both cases was five years.
{¶ 8} Aston, pursuant to App.R. 5(A), filed motions for delayed appeal for both cases. This court granted her motions for delayed appeal. On appeal, case Nos. 2005-L-160 and 2005-L-161 have been consolidated for all purposes.
{¶ 9} Aston raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶ 10} "[1.] The trial court erred in sentencing the defendant-appellant to five years in prison when it sentenced her contrary to R.C.
{¶ 11} "[2.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to consecutive sentences based upon a finding of factors not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant-appellant in violation of the defendant-appellant's state and federal constitutional rights to trial by jury."
{¶ 12} Initially, we will consider Aston's second assignment of error. This assignment of error is raised in response to the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Blakely v.Washington.1
{¶ 13} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that an appellate court may only consider the sentences that the appellant challenges on appeal.2 Aston's "cumulative" sentence contains "more than the minimum sentences" and consecutive sentences. In Aston's second assignment of error, she challenges the consecutive nature of the sentences imposed by the trial court. Thus, she has directly challenged the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences in light of the Blakely
decision. She does not directly challenge the trial court's sentences on a "more than the minimum" analysis pursuant to former R.C.
{¶ 14} The Supreme Court of Ohio has addressed the implication of Blakely v. Washington on Ohio's sentencing structure.4 In State v. Foster, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that "[b]ecause R.C.
{¶ 15} To remedy the sentencing statutes, the Supreme Court of Ohio severed the unconstitutional portions requiring judicial factfinding.7
{¶ 16} The trial court's "cumulative" sentence contains "more than the minimum" and consecutive sentences, which were arrived at via judicial factfinding. Thus, pursuant to State v. Foster,
the consecutive sentences are unconstitutional.8 In addition, in case No. 05 CR 000109, Aston received a two-year sentence on count one, a third-degree felony, and an eighteen-month sentence on count two, a fourth-degree felony. Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 17} We note that the trial court found, in case No. 05 CR 000017, pursuant to former R.C.
{¶ 18} Finally, our analysis turns to the sentences the trial court imposed in case No. 05 CR 000017. Aston was sentenced to one-year terms for her third-degree felonies and a three-year term for her first-degree felony conviction. These are the minimum terms of the applicable statutory ranges.14 Therefore, no judicial factfinding was required for the imposition of these sentences.15 Since these sentences do not violate State v. Foster, we will not disturb these sentences on appeal.16
{¶ 19} Aston's second assignment of error has merit. Since the trial court's judgment entries are being reversed, Aston's first assignment of error is moot.
{¶ 20} The judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the matters are remanded for resentencing, pursuant to State v.Foster.17 Specifically, the trial court is to resentence Aston on counts one and two in case No. 05 CR 000109, since we have vacated the prior sentences on these counts. Thereafter, in both cases, the trial court is to determine whether Aston's sentences should be served consecutively and, if applicable, designate which sentences are to be served consecutively and which are to be served concurrently.
O'Toole, J., concurs, Grendell, J., concurs in judgment only.