State v. Fraley, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2006)
State v. Fraley, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2006)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following assignment of error:
{¶ 3} "The trial court committed a prejudicial error by imposing a sentence greater than the statutorily presumed sentence based on facts that were neither admitted to by appellant nor were found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."
{¶ 4} The facts relevant to the issues raised on appeal are as follows. On February 6, 1998, appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C.
{¶ 5} On April 15, 2002, appellant was again brought before the trial court to show cause why his community control sanctions should not be terminated after being convicted of failing to pay child support. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community control and continued his sanctions under the same terms and conditions previously ordered.
{¶ 6} The record reflects that on November 12, 2002, after appellant was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol, he once again was brought before the trial court to show cause why his community control sanctions should not be revoked and sentence imposed. On November 18, 2002, the trial court revoked appellant's community sanctions and imposed a four-year prison term for the offense of gross sexual imposition and a nine-month prison term for the offense of failure to register. Appellant appealed and this court reversed the trial court, finding that the trial court had failed to place appellant on notice at his original sentencing hearing of the specific prison term that would be imposed if he violated community control.State v. Fraley, 6th Dist. No. E-02-051,
{¶ 7} The state filed a motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative a motion to certify the case to the Supreme Court of Ohio for being in conflict with State v. Sutherlin,
{¶ 8} Appellant now asserts the trial court erred by basing his sentence on facts that were not found by a jury and to which he had not admitted. We find the trial court articulated evidentiary reasons in support of appellant's sentences.
{¶ 9} We further find, however, that this case is controlled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v.Foster, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,
{¶ 10} Foster was released while this case was pending on direct review. As such, Foster dictates that appellant's sentence is void and therefore must be vacated and remanded for resentencing on the basis of non-severed sentencing statutes.
{¶ 11} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is reversed as to sentence only and remanded solely for resentencing in conformity with Foster. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Erie County.
Judgment Affirmed, In Part, And Reversed, In Part.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.
Handwork, J. Skow, J. Parish, J. concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.