Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2011He argues that State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , which severed the judicial fact-finding requirement from Ohio’s sentencing statutes, is no longer valid in light of Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 . {¶ 42} The Ohio Supreme court rejected this argument in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 941 N.E.2d 768 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , wherein it determined that Ice does not revive the severed sentencing statutes and that “[t]rial court judges are not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences u 2011He argues that State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , which severed the judicial fact-finding requirement from Ohio’s sentencing statutes, is no longer valid in light of Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 . {¶ 42} The Ohio Supreme court rejected this argument in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 941 N.E.2d 768 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , wherein it determined that Ice does not revive the severed sentencing statutes and that “[t]rial court judges are not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences u | 1 | 2 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007Appellant's argues that (1) before Foster , the maximum sentence that could be imposed without jury fact-finding was the statutory minimum sentence; see United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L.Ed .2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531 ; (2) Foster , supra at paragraphs one and seven of the syllabus, correctly struck down the judicial fact-finding requirement in R.C. 2929.14 , but permits trial courts to impose non-minimum *Page 4 sentences as long as they are within the statutory range; (3) thus, even though the t 2007Appellant's argues that (1) before Foster , the maximum sentence that could be imposed without jury fact-finding was the statutory minimum sentence; see United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L.Ed .2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531 ; (2) Foster , supra at paragraphs one and seven of the syllabus, correctly struck down the judicial fact-finding requirement in R.C. 2929.14 , but permits trial courts to impose non-minimum *Page 4 sentences as long as they are within the statutory range; (3) thus, even though the t | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Bookergreen2 sentences2007Appellant's argues that (1) before Foster , the maximum sentence that could be imposed without jury fact-finding was the statutory minimum sentence; see United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L.Ed .2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531 ; (2) Foster , supra at paragraphs one and seven of the syllabus, correctly struck down the judicial fact-finding requirement in R.C. 2929.14 , but permits trial courts to impose non-minimum *Page 4 sentences as long as they are within the statutory range; (3) thus, even though the t 2007Appellant's argues that (1) before Foster , the maximum sentence that could be imposed without jury fact-finding was the statutory minimum sentence; see United States v. Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L.Ed .2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531 ; (2) Foster , supra at paragraphs one and seven of the syllabus, correctly struck down the judicial fact-finding requirement in R.C. 2929.14 , but permits trial courts to impose non-minimum *Page 4 sentences as long as they are within the statutory range; (3) thus, even though the t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. White
green
2 sentences2014White, 2013-Ohio-4225 , 997 N.E.2d 629 at ¶ 7. 2013In doing so, H.B. 86 reenacted the felony sentencing standard of review set forth in section (G)(2) of R.C. 2953.08. {¶ 28} Recently, in State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225 , 997 N.E.2d 629 (1st Dist.), the First –11– District Court of Appeals aptly stated: We presume the legislature knew what it was doing when it reenacted the R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard of review. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Hess
neutral
1 sentence2013None of the six conditions applies to Hess. [Cite as State v. Hess, 2013-Ohio-10 .] {¶ 13} R.C. 2929.41(A), as amended by H.B. 86, failed to reflect the renumbering of the judicial fact-finding requirements for consecutive sentencing from R.C. 2929.14(E) to R.C. 2929.14(C). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Oregon v. Ice
green
2 sentences2011He argues that State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , which severed the judicial fact-finding requirement from Ohio’s sentencing statutes, is no longer valid in light of Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 . {¶ 42} The Ohio Supreme court rejected this argument in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 941 N.E.2d 768 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , wherein it determined that Ice does not revive the severed sentencing statutes and that “[t]rial court judges are not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences u 2011He argues that State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , which severed the judicial fact-finding requirement from Ohio’s sentencing statutes, is no longer valid in light of Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 . {¶ 42} The Ohio Supreme court rejected this argument in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 941 N.E.2d 768 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , wherein it determined that Ice does not revive the severed sentencing statutes and that “[t]rial court judges are not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences u | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Hodge
green
2 sentences2011He argues that State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , which severed the judicial fact-finding requirement from Ohio’s sentencing statutes, is no longer valid in light of Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 . {¶ 42} The Ohio Supreme court rejected this argument in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 941 N.E.2d 768 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , wherein it determined that Ice does not revive the severed sentencing statutes and that “[t]rial court judges are not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences u 2011He argues that State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , 2006-Ohio-856 , which severed the judicial fact-finding requirement from Ohio’s sentencing statutes, is no longer valid in light of Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 . {¶ 42} The Ohio Supreme court rejected this argument in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 941 N.E.2d 768 , 2010-Ohio-6320 , wherein it determined that Ice does not revive the severed sentencing statutes and that “[t]rial court judges are not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences u | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.