DocketNumber: No. 22208.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 3376
Judges: GRADY, J.:
Filed Date: 7/3/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} We affirmed Defendant's convictions on direct appeal, but reversed his sentences and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make the findings required by R.C.
{¶ 3} Defendant was resentenced on January 24, 2006, to fifteen years to life on each count of murder, to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of thirty years to life. Defendant again appealed to this court. Relying upon State v. Foster,
{¶ 4} Defendant was resentenced on May 22, 2007, to fifteen years to life on each count of murder, to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of thirty years to life. The trial court gave Defendant credit for all of the time he spent in jail in Mexico awaiting extradition to Ohio.
{¶ 5} Defendant timely appealed to this court from his resentencing. Defendant's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, Anders v.California (1967),
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 6} "IT WAS PLAIN ERROR AND A DENIAL OF THE APPELLANT'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE
{¶ 7} Defendant argues that the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive sentences because State v. Foster, as part of its remedy, excised in their entirety the statutory provisions authorizing consecutive sentences, R.C.
{¶ 8} Pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court's mandate in Foster, trial courts have the discretionary power to impose consecutive sentences.Id., at 105; Rigsbee, at ¶ 42. This power to impose consecutive sentences derives from the common law. Rigsbee, at ¶ 44. In the absence of a statute, it is a matter solely within the discretion of the sentencing court whether sentences shall run consecutively or concurrently. Stewart v. Maxwell (1963),
{¶ 9} Defendant's first assignment of error lacks any *Page 5 arguable merit.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 10} "IT WAS PLAIN ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO RESENTENCE APPELLANT TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES UNDER THE PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF STATE V.FOSTER, BECAUSE DOING SO VIOLATES APPELLANT'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AS WELL AS HIS SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHT BECAUSE SUCH PROCEDURE VIOLATES HIS PROTECTION AGAINST APPLICATION OF EX POST FACTO LAWS AND VITIATES HIS DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE
{¶ 11} Defendant argues that his resentencing pursuant to State v.Foster operates as an ex post facto law, and therefore is prohibited by Article
{¶ 12} Defendant also claims that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendant asserts that the judicial findings of fact in R.C.
{¶ 13} The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a second prosecution after acquittal as well as multiple punishments for the same offense. See:North Carolina v. Pearce (1969),
{¶ 14} Defendant's second assignment of error lacks *Page 7 arguable merit.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 15} "APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT HIS RESENTENCING HEARING OF MAY 22, 2007 AND IS PRESENTLY BEING DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS CURRENT APPEAL AS OF RIGHT. REFERENCING: PENSON V.OHIO,
{¶ 16} Defendant argues that both his trial counsel at the May 22, 2007 resentencing hearing and his appellate counsel in this appeal provided ineffective representation because neither one argued that resentencing pursuant to Foster operates as an ex post facto law and violates his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
{¶ 17} Counsel's performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel's performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel's performance. Strickland v. Washington (1984),
{¶ 18} In disposing of the previous assignment of error, we determined that Defendant's ex post facto and double jeopardy arguments both lacked merit. Counsel did not perform deficiently, nor was Defendant prejudiced by failing to raise issues that lack merit. Ineffective assistance of counsel has not been demonstrated.
{¶ 19} Defendant's third assignment of error lacks arguable merit. Performing our independent review, we find no error of a non-frivolous nature. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
FAIN, J. And WALTERS, J., concur.
(Hon. Sumner E. Walters, retired from the Third Appellate District, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to:
Kirsten A. Brandt, Esq.
Brent E. Rambo
Salvador G. Nunez
*Page 1Hon. William B. McCracken
State v. Nunez , 2005 Ohio 6261 ( 2005 )
State v. Hayes, 21914 (1-4-2008) , 2008 Ohio 16 ( 2008 )
State v. Rigsbee , 2007 Ohio 6267 ( 2007 )
Anders v. California , 87 S. Ct. 1396 ( 1967 )
North Carolina v. Pearce , 89 S. Ct. 2072 ( 1969 )
Penson v. Ohio , 109 S. Ct. 346 ( 1988 )