109 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Recuencogreen2 sentences2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (Blakely error is not a “structural error” and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 207} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it. 2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (Blakely error is not a “structural error” and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 207} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it. | 5 | 10 |
State v. Draughon, Unpublished Decision (5-16-2006)green2 sentences2007Second, appellant claims that the trial court committed plain error by sentencing him to consecutive, non-minimum prison terms in violation of Blakely and State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . {¶ 33} Appellant was sentenced after Blakely , but before the Ohio Supreme Court decided Foster , which applied Blakely to the Ohio sentencing statutes. 3 This court has consistently held "that a Blakely challenge is waived by a defendant sentenced after Blakely if it was not raised in the trial court." State v. Draughon , Franklin App. No. 05AP-860, 2006-Ohio-2445 , ¶ 8 . 2007Second, appellant claims that the trial court committed plain error by sentencing him to consecutive, non-minimum prison terms in violation of Blakely and State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . {¶ 33} Appellant was sentenced after Blakely , but before the Ohio Supreme Court decided Foster , which applied Blakely to the Ohio sentencing statutes. 3 This court has consistently held "that a Blakely challenge is waived by a defendant sentenced after Blakely if it was not raised in the trial court." State v. Draughon , Franklin App. No. 05AP-860, 2006-Ohio-2445 , ¶ 8 . | 3 | 28 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2008Specifically, he states, in a one-sentence argument, that his attorney "failed to raise a Blakely objection ( Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 ) *Page 11 at sentencing, thus waiving the defendant's rights as held in State v. Payne (2007), 114 Ohio St.3d 502 ." {¶ 40} Appellant's argument seems to be that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to appellant's sentence based on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . 2008Furthermore, appellant argues that State v. Foster , 2006-Ohio-856 , ¶ 93-102 , is incompatible with Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , and its progeny, because the Ohio Supreme Court applied a severance remedy to resolve the constitutional violations found in the Ohio sentencing statutes. {¶ 40} First, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the failure to raise a Blakely issue during sentencing results in forfeiture of the alleged sentencing error on appeal. | 2 | 13 |
Mosley v. State, Unpublished Decision (6-20-2006)green2 sentences2006See, also, State v. Mosley , Franklin App. No. 05AP-701, 2006-Ohio-3102 , at ¶ 43 (appellant, whose sentencing hearing took place after Blakely , and who failed to object to any constitutional error in his sentencing, waived right to new sentencing hearing); State v. Thacker , Franklin App. No. 05AP-834, 2006-Ohio-3449 , at ¶ 10 (same). {¶ 7} In the instant case, as noted by the state, appellant was sentenced more than one year after the Blakely decision was announced. 1 Thus, because appellant had the opportunity to raise the issue of Blakely error but failed to do so, he has waived the right 2006Cf. State v. Mosley, Franklin App. No. 05AP-701, 2006-Ohio-3102 (concluding that the defendant waived the claim by failing to raise it at sentencing); State v. Simms, Franklin App. Nos. 05AP-806, 05AP-807, 2006-Ohio-2960 (same). {¶ 41} In this matter, defendant waived his right to a jury trial and did not preserve the Sixth Amendment/ Blakely issue at the time of sentencing. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (Blakely error is not a “structural error” and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 207} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it. 2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (Blakely error is not a “structural error” and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 207} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Jestergreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., State v. Jester (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 147, 150 , 512 N.E.2d 962 (“appellant cannot claim that the trial court’s instruction was plain error, inasmuch as he cannot demonstrate that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been different”). 2007See, e.g., State v. Jester (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 147, 150 , 512 N.E.2d 962 (“appellant cannot claim that the trial court’s instruction was plain error, inasmuch as he cannot demonstrate that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been different”). | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Goss, Unpublished Decision (2-24-2006)green | 2 | 2 |
State v. Paynegreen2 sentences2008The Ohio *Page 25 Supreme Court recently considered a similar situation in State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 873 N.E.2d 306 , 2007-Ohio-4642 and State v. Davis , 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 880 N.E.2d 31 , 2008-Ohio-2 . {¶ 50} The Payne Court held that "a lack of an objection in the trial court forfeits the Blakely issue for purposes of appeal when the sentencing occurred after the announcement of Blakely ." 4 Payne , 2007-Ohio-4642 at ¶ 31 . 2008The Ohio *Page 25 Supreme Court recently considered a similar situation in State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 873 N.E.2d 306 , 2007-Ohio-4642 and State v. Davis , 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 880 N.E.2d 31 , 2008-Ohio-2 . {¶ 50} The Payne Court held that "a lack of an objection in the trial court forfeits the Blakely issue for purposes of appeal when the sentencing occurred after the announcement of Blakely ." 4 Payne , 2007-Ohio-4642 at ¶ 31 . | 1 | 23 |
United States v. Bookergreen2 sentences2008Relying on United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , the Ohio Supreme Court then addressed the issue finding that failure to raise an objection in the trial court after sentencing, post- Blakely , forfeits a claim for a Blakely error. 2008Relying on United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , the Ohio Supreme Court then addressed the issue finding that failure to raise an objection in the trial court after sentencing, post- Blakely , forfeits a claim for a Blakely error. | 1 | 16 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2008Specifically, he states, in a one-sentence argument, that his attorney "failed to raise a Blakely objection ( Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 ) *Page 11 at sentencing, thus waiving the defendant's rights as held in State v. Payne (2007), 114 Ohio St.3d 502 ." {¶ 40} Appellant's argument seems to be that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to appellant's sentence based on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . 2008See State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 873 N.E.2d 306 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , at ¶ 21 ("[W]e hold that a lack of an objection in the trial court forfeits the Blakely issue for purposes of appeal when the sentencing occurred after the announcement of Blakely .") Like the defendant in Payne , appellant's sentencing occurred after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely , 542 U.S. 296 , but before the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 . {¶ 47} Because appellant forfeited this issue, we must apply the plain error analysis here. | 1 | 10 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2007The Supreme Court of Ohio has found that "[b]y its very terms, the rule places three limitations on a reviewing court's decision to correct an error despite the absence of a timely objection at trial." State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 . 2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , 2002 Ohio 68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725 , 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S., 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 ( Blakely error is not a `structural error' and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 59} "The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it. | 1 | 4 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2007C {¶ 21} Because Blakely was announced prior to Payne’s plea and sentence, and because we conclude that the error is not structural, in failing to make a Blakely objection, Payne forfeited the issue for appellate purposes. {¶ 22} At this point, we note that this case involves forfeiture rather than waiver. 2 The distinction between these two terms is critical. {¶ 23} Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a right, and waiver of a right “cannot form the basis of any claimed error under Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. McKee (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 292, 299 , 744 N.E.2d 737 , fn. 3 (Co 2007C {¶ 21} Because Blakely was announced prior to Payne’s plea and sentence, and because we conclude that the error is not structural, in failing to make a Blakely objection, Payne forfeited the issue for appellate purposes. {¶ 22} At this point, we note that this case involves forfeiture rather than waiver. 2 The distinction between these two terms is critical. {¶ 23} Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a right, and waiver of a right “cannot form the basis of any claimed error under Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. McKee (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 292, 299 , 744 N.E.2d 737 , fn. 3 (Co | 1 | 3 |
State v. Murphygreen2 sentences2007See, also, State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 532 , 2001-Ohio-112 , reconsideration denied, 92 Ohio St.3d 1451 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , quoting State v. Childs (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 62 , certiorari denied (1969), 394 U.S. 1002 , 89 S.Ct. 1596 (acknowledging that even constitutional rights may be lost by failing to assert them at a the proper time). {¶ 70} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we overrule defendant's second assignment of error. *Page 26 {¶ 71} For the foregoing reasons, both of defendant's assignments of error are overrul 2007See, also, State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 532 , 2001-Ohio-112 , reconsideration denied, 92 Ohio St.3d 1451 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , quoting State v. Childs (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 62 , certiorari denied (1969), 394 U.S. 1002 , 89 S.Ct. 1596 (acknowledging that even constitutional rights may be lost by failing to assert them at a the proper time). {¶ 70} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we overrule defendant's second assignment of error. *Page 26 {¶ 71} For the foregoing reasons, both of defendant's assignments of error are overrul | 1 | 3 |
State v. Murphygreen2 sentences2007See, also, State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 532 , 2001-Ohio-112 , reconsideration denied, 92 Ohio St.3d 1451 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , quoting State v. Childs (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 62 , certiorari denied (1969), 394 U.S. 1002 , 89 S.Ct. 1596 (acknowledging that even constitutional rights may be lost by failing to assert them at a the proper time). {¶ 70} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we overrule defendant's second assignment of error. *Page 26 {¶ 71} For the foregoing reasons, both of defendant's assignments of error are overrul 2007See, also, State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 532 , 2001-Ohio-112 , reconsideration denied, 92 Ohio St.3d 1451 , certiorari denied (2002), 534 U.S. 1116 , 122 S.Ct. 926 , quoting State v. Childs (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 56 , 62 , certiorari denied (1969), 394 U.S. 1002 , 89 S.Ct. 1596 (acknowledging that even constitutional rights may be lost by failing to assert them at a the proper time). {¶ 70} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we overrule defendant's second assignment of error. *Page 26 {¶ 71} For the foregoing reasons, both of defendant's assignments of error are overrul | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mota, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2006)green2 sentences2006No. L-04-1354, 2006-Ohio-3800 . 2006No. L-04-1354, 2006-Ohio-3800 , 2006 WL 2053318 . | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Fraziergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Peaglergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bradley v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hunt v. Georgiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hartje v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Childsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Anderson, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Carter, Unpublished Decision (8-14-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bradleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Borg-Warner Corp. v. Republic Gear Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Childs v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lockhart v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Silverman, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brinkmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Hortsmann, Unpublished Decision (4-29-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| Smylie v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (7-20-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2008Earlier, we outlined our plain error standard of review under Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 46} The Foster Court considered the constitutionality of Ohio's sentencing statutes in light of the United States Supreme Court's holdings in Blakely and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466 . 2007Id. at _9. | 4 | 2005–2008 |
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2008In that the United States Supreme Court has held that the later omission does not render an entire trial fundamentally unfair, Neder v. United States , (1999), 527 U.S. 1 , 19-20 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , the Payne court reasoned that a Blakely violation should be treated identically. 2 The Payne court distinguished between forfeiture and waiver. 2008In that the United States Supreme Court has held that the later omission does not render an entire trial fundamentally unfair, Neder v. United States , (1999), 527 U.S. 1 , 19-20 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , the Payne court reasoned that a Blakely violation should be treated identically. 2 The Payne court distinguished between forfeiture and waiver. | 3 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007See, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 (stating that "[f]ailure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error"). {¶ 69} Furthermore, because an appellate court need not consider an error that a party failed to raise before the trial court at a time in which such error could have been corrected or avoided by the trial court, State v. Glaros (1960), 170 Ohio St. 471 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , paragraph one of the syllabus, vacated in part 2007See, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 (stating that "[f]ailure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error"). {¶ 69} Furthermore, because an appellate court need not consider an error that a party failed to raise before the trial court at a time in which such error could have been corrected or avoided by the trial court, State v. Glaros (1960), 170 Ohio St. 471 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , paragraph one of the syllabus, vacated in part | 3 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Gillard
green
2 sentences2007See, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 (stating that "[f]ailure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error"). {¶ 69} Furthermore, because an appellate court need not consider an error that a party failed to raise before the trial court at a time in which such error could have been corrected or avoided by the trial court, State v. Glaros (1960), 170 Ohio St. 471 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , paragraph one of the syllabus, vacated in part 2007See, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 (stating that "[f]ailure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error"). {¶ 69} Furthermore, because an appellate court need not consider an error that a party failed to raise before the trial court at a time in which such error could have been corrected or avoided by the trial court, State v. Glaros (1960), 170 Ohio St. 471 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , paragraph one of the syllabus, vacated in part | 3 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Dudukovich, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2006)
green
2 sentences2006State v. Draughon, Franklin App. No. 05AP-860, 2006-Ohio-2445 , citing United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 ; State v. Dudukovich, Lorain App. No. 05CA008729, 2006-Ohio-1309 . {¶ 22} Defendant was sentenced on August 15, 2005, well after the Blakely decision, but defendant failed to raise a Blakely challenge in the trial court. 2006State v. Draughon, Franklin App. No. 05AP-860, 2006-Ohio-2445 , citing United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 ; State v. Dudukovich, Lorain App. No. 05CA008729, 2006-Ohio-1309 . {¶ 22} Defendant was sentenced on August 15, 2005, well after the Blakely decision, but defendant failed to raise a Blakely challenge in the trial court. | 3 | 2006–2006 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008He also asserts that his counsel's failure to raise a Blakely objection to his sentencing prevented him from securing minimum concurrent sentences. {¶ 47} In Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , the United States Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the accused's right to counsel and the standard by which ineffective assistance of counsel should be determined. 2008He also asserts that his counsel's failure to raise a Blakely objection to his sentencing prevented him from securing minimum concurrent sentences. {¶ 47} In Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , the United States Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the accused's right to counsel and the standard by which ineffective assistance of counsel should be determined. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Van
green
2 sentences2006See State v. Moore, 161 Ohio App.3d 778 , 832 N.E.2d 85 , 2005-Ohio-3311 ; State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Van (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 168 , 170 , 522 N.E.2d 524 . {¶ 22} Second, the issues raised in appellant's petition for Redress should have been raised on direct appeal or in a petition for postconviction relief, including any Blakely issue. 2006See State v. Moore, 161 Ohio App.3d 778 , 832 N.E.2d 85 , 2005-Ohio-3311 ; State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Van (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 168 , 170 , 522 N.E.2d 524 . {¶ 22} Second, the issues raised in appellant's petition for Redress should have been raised on direct appeal or in a petition for postconviction relief, including any Blakely issue. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Nickelson, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2007)
neutral
2 sentences2008No. WD-06-023, 2007-Ohio-6367 , ¶ 72-73 . 2008No. WD-06-023, 2007-Ohio-6367 , ¶ 72-73 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2008However, a claim of plain error survives. {¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio, following Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S.___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 , held that a Blakely type of error *Page 4 should be analyzed pursuant to Crim.R. 52, as a nonstructural constitutional error. 1 As Payne failed to establish that his sentence would have been different "absent the error," State v. Hill (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , the court held that there was no plain error. {¶ 9} Finally, the court addressed Payne's claim that the use of the word "void" by the Foster court in describing 2007However, a claim of plain error survives. {¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio, following Washington v. Recuenco (2006), ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , held that a Blakely type of error should be analyzed pursuant to Crim.R. 52, as a nonstructural constitutional error. 1 As Payne failed to *Page 4 establish that his sentence would have been different "absent the error," State v Hill (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , the court held that there was no plain error. {¶ 9} Finally, the court addressed Payne's claim that the use of the word "void" by the Foster court in describing his sentence requires th | 2 | 2007–2008 |
State v. McKee
green
2 sentences2008R. 52(B)." Payne at ¶ 23, citing State v. McKee , 91 Ohio St.3d 292 , 299 , 2001-Ohio-41 . 18 The court began by analyzing whether a Blakely error could be considered in plain error terms or if it was so structurally erroneous that the error "permeate[d] the entire framework within which the trial proceeds." Payne at ¶ 18, citing State v. Fisher , 99 Ohio St.3d 127 , 2003-Ohio-2761 . 2008R. 52(B)." Payne at ¶ 23, citing State v. McKee , 91 Ohio St.3d 292 , 299 , 2001-Ohio-41 . 18 The court began by analyzing whether a Blakely error could be considered in plain error terms or if it was so structurally erroneous that the error "permeate[d] the entire framework within which the trial proceeds." Payne at ¶ 18, citing State v. Fisher , 99 Ohio St.3d 127 , 2003-Ohio-2761 . | 2 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Abdul-Mumin, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2005)
green
2 sentences2008This court also rejected appellant's Apprendi/Blakely claim on authority of State v. Abdul-Mumin , Franklin App. No. 04AP-485, 2005-Ohio-522 , and its progeny. 2006The trial court determined that (1) defendant failed to set forth sufficient operative facts that would require a hearing; (2) the claims based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel are precluded by res judicata; and (3) the Blakely claim fails as a matter of law in view of State v. Abdul-Mumin, Franklin App. No. 04AP-485, 2005-Ohio-522 . {¶ 7} Defendant appeals and has set forth the following three assignments of error: I. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Payne, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2006)
green
2 sentences2006No. 05AP-517, 2006-Ohio-2552 , 2006 WL 1401616 , both hold that failure to bring a Blakely challenge at sentencing, if sentencing occurs after Blakely was decided, means that the defendant waives the right to the challenge. {¶ 33} Section 3(B)(4), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution requires that when a court of appeals finds itself in conflict with another court of appeals on the same question of law, that court must certify its decision and the record of the matter to the Supreme Court of Ohio for a resolution of the question. 2006No. 05AP-517, 2006-Ohio-2552 , 2006 WL 1401616 , both hold that failure to bring a Blakely challenge at sentencing, if sentencing occurs after Blakely was decided, means that the defendant waives the right to the challenge. {¶ 33} Section 3(B)(4), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution requires that when a court of appeals finds itself in conflict with another court of appeals on the same question of law, that court must certify its decision and the record of the matter to the Supreme Court of Ohio for a resolution of the question. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Austin, Unpublished Decision (3-11-2005)
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., State v. Goss, Montgomery App. No. 21162, 2006-Ohio-836 , at ¶ 9; State v. Austin, Montgomery App. No. 20445, 2005-Ohio-1035 , at ¶ 23-24. 2006See, e.g., State v. Goss, Montgomery App. No. 21162, 2006-Ohio-836 , at ¶ 9 ; State v. Austin, Montgomery App. No. 20445, 2005-Ohio-1035 , at ¶ 23-24 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Craig, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005) green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Bartley, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2006) neutral | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Myers, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2005)
green
2 sentences2006State v. Craig , Licking App. No. 2005CA16, 2005-Ohio-5300 ; State v. Myers , Franklin App. No. 05AP-228, 2005-Ohio-5998 (concluding Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases seeking collateral review of a conviction); State v. Cruse , Franklin App. No. 05AP-125, 2005-Ohio-5095 ; State v. Stillman , Fairfield App. No. 2005-CA-55, 2005-Ohio-6299 (concluding U.S. Supreme Court did not make Blakely retroactive to cases already final on direct review). {¶ 25} As previously stated, in Booker , supra, the United States Supreme Court limited its holdings in Blakely and Apprendi to cases on direct 2006State v. Craig , Licking App. No. 2005CA16, 2005-Ohio-5300 ; State v. Myers , Franklin App. No. 05AP-228, 2005-Ohio-5998 (concluding Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases seeking collateral review of a conviction); State v. Cruse , Franklin App. No. 05AP-125, 2005-Ohio-5095 ; State v. Stillman , Fairfield App. No. 2005-CA-55, 2005-Ohio-6299 (concluding U.S. Supreme Court did not make Blakely retroactive to cases already final on direct review). {¶ 25} As previously stated, in Booker , supra, the United States Supreme Court limited its holdings in Blakely and Apprendi to cases on direct | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Stillman, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2005)
green
2 sentences2006State v. Craig , Licking App. No. 2005CA16, 2005-Ohio-5300 ; State v. Myers , Franklin App. No. 05AP-228, 2005-Ohio-5998 (concluding Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases seeking collateral review of a conviction); State v. Cruse , Franklin App. No. 05AP-125, 2005-Ohio-5095 ; State v. Stillman , Fairfield App. No. 2005-CA-55, 2005-Ohio-6299 (concluding U.S. Supreme Court did not make Blakely retroactive to cases already final on direct review). {¶ 25} As previously stated, in Booker , supra, the United States Supreme Court limited its holdings in Blakely and Apprendi to cases on direct 2006State v. Craig , Licking App. No. 2005CA16, 2005-Ohio-5300 ; State v. Myers , Franklin App. No. 05AP-228, 2005-Ohio-5998 (concluding Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases seeking collateral review of a conviction); State v. Cruse , Franklin App. No. 05AP-125, 2005-Ohio-5095 ; State v. Stillman , Fairfield App. No. 2005-CA-55, 2005-Ohio-6299 (concluding U.S. Supreme Court did not make Blakely retroactive to cases already final on direct review). {¶ 25} As previously stated, in Booker , supra, the United States Supreme Court limited its holdings in Blakely and Apprendi to cases on direct | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Thacker, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2006)
neutral
2 sentences2006See, also, State v. Mosley , Franklin App. No. 05AP-701, 2006-Ohio-3102 , at ¶ 43 (appellant, whose sentencing hearing took place after Blakely , and who failed to object to any constitutional error in his sentencing, waived right to new sentencing hearing); State v. Thacker , Franklin App. No. 05AP-834, 2006-Ohio-3449 , at ¶ 10 (same). {¶ 7} In the instant case, as noted by the state, appellant was sentenced more than one year after the Blakely decision was announced. 1 Thus, because appellant had the opportunity to raise the issue of Blakely error but failed to do so, he has waived the right 2006See State v. Mosley, Franklin App. No. 05AP-701, 2006-Ohio-3102 , at ¶ 43 (appellant, whose sentencing hearing took place after Blakely , and who failed to object to any constitutional error in his sentencing, waived right to a new sentencing hearing); State v. Lair, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1083, 2006-Ohio-4109 , at ¶ 25 (citing Draughon, supra); State v. Thacker, Franklin App. No. 05AP-834, 2006-Ohio-3449 , at ¶ 10 (same). {¶ 7} As noted, appellant in the instant case was sentenced more than one year after the Blakely decision. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Montgomery green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Ragland, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2007) green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Eugene Anderson v. Reginald Wilkinson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. McKee green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Rader, 2006-L-246 (2-8-2008) neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Hungler v. City of Cincinnati green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Moreland green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Fisher green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Dixon, 21796 (1-18-2008) neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Lariva, Unpublished Decision (11-8-2005) neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Michel v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Durbin, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2006) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2006) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Peeks, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2006) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Dennis, Unpublished Decision (9-19-2006) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Cook, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2006) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Mesko v. Elias, Unpublished Decision (5-18-2006) neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Awan green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Winterbotham, Unpublished Decision (8-4-2006) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Jordan v. Arizona green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pratts v. Hurley green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.