State v. Hughett, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2005)
State v. Hughett, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2005)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on June 10, 2004. The trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of twelve months on counts one and three of the indictment. The trial court ordered the terms be served concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the sentence imposed in a robbery conviction in Franklin County, Ohio. With respect to count two, the trial court imposed community control sanctions for a period not to exceed five years, commencing upon his release from prison. The trial court memorialized the sentence via Judgment Entry on Sentence filed June 22, 2004.
{¶ 4} Appellant appealed and we affirmed the sentences in part but reversed the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. State v.Hughett, 5th District No. 04CAA06051,
{¶ 5} A sentencing hearing was conducted by the trial court on December 17, 2004. The trial court imposed the same sentence as it had previously imposed in Hughett I. The trial court memorialized the sentence via Judgment Entry on Sentence filed January 13, 2005.
{¶ 6} It is from this judgment entry appellant appeals, raising the following three assignments of error:
{¶ 7} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SENTENCING THE APPELLANT TO THE MAXIMUM PRISON TERM OF COUNTS ONE AND THREE.
{¶ 8} "II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT TO A PRISON TERM FOR A FIFTH DEGREE FELONY.
{¶ 9} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT TO A NON-MINIMUM PRISON TERM BASED ON FACTS NOT FOUND BY THE JURY OR ADMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT."
{¶ 11} In State v. Hughett, 5th District No. 04CAA06051,
{¶ 12} Accordingly, the issues of the trial court's sentencing appellant to a maximum term of imprisonment for a fifth degree felony, sentencing appellant to a term of imprisonment for a fifth degree felony, and sentencing appellant to a term of imprisonment based upon facts not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant were neither reversed nor remanded and are the law of the case.
{¶ 13} None of the assignments of error in the present appeal are predicated upon the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences which was the sole purpose of our limited remand.
{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellants First, Second and Third Assignments of Error are overruled.
{¶ 15} For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J., Hoffman, J., and Farmer, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.