DocketNumber: Case No. 98CA4
Judges: <italic>Hoffman, J.</italic>
Filed Date: 10/30/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PROVIDED BY THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLEI , SECTION10 , OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE DUE PROCESS PROTECTION UNDER THEFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND IN ARTICLEI , SECTION16 , OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
On July 11, 1996, the Coshocton County Grand Jury indicted appellant on five counts of aggravated trafficking in crack cocaine, in violation of R.C.
On May 12, 1997, the trial court sentenced appellant pursuant to the statutory guidelines in existence at the time appellant was alleged to have committed the crimes for which he was charged. Appellant does not dispute the activity for which he was charged by way of indictment occurred before July 1, 1996.
Following his sentence, appellant filed a motion with the trial court requesting he be resentenced under the provisions of Am. Sub. S.B. No. 2, which law became effective July 1, 1996. The trial court overruled appellant's motion. It is from this decision appellant has filed the within appeal.
Appellant contends, by enacting Am. Sub. S.B. No. 2, the Ohio General Assembly effected significant changes in Ohio's Criminal Code which resulted in the reduction of the terms of imprisonment for many offenses as compared to the former statutory scheme. Appellant admits the crimes for which he plead no contest were committed prior to the effective date of Am. Sub. S.B. No. 2 (July 1, 1996). However, because he was not sentenced for those crimes until after the effective date, appellant maintains he should have been sentenced under Am. Sub. S.B. No. 2, which bill became effective between the date of his crimes and his pleas of no contest to same.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently held in State v. Rush (1998),
Accordingly, because the crimes to which appellant pled no contest were committed before July 1, 1996, the effective date of Am. Sub. S.B. No. 2, the amended sentencing provisions do not apply.
Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
For these reasons, the judgment entered in the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J., Farmer, P.J. and Gwin, J. concur.
For the reasons stated in accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment entered in the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.