State v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (6-26-2006)
State v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (6-26-2006)
Opinion of the Court
¶ 2} On appeal, appellant presents two assignments of error which essentially claim the trial court erred by imposing more than the minimum prison term for his felony convictions.
¶ 3} The Ohio Supreme Court recently found portions of Ohio's felony sentencing scheme unconstitutional and severed those portions from Ohio's sentencing code. See State v. Foster,
¶ 4} In this case, the trial court made certain findings under R.C.
¶ 5} The Foster court instructed that all cases pending under direct review in which the unconstitutional sentencing provisions were utilized must be remanded for sentencing. SeeFoster at ¶ 104. Accordingly, appellant's assignments of errors are sustained.
¶ 6} The judgment of the trial court is reversed as to sentencing and the case is remanded for resentencing as to counts One, Three, Four, and Five.
Powell, P.J., and Young, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.