State v. Dalton, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2007)
This text of 2007 Ohio 180 (State v. Dalton, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2007)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} His first two assignments of error implicate the maximum and consecutive sentences. Sentence was imposed January 27, 2006, one month before the announcement of State v. Foster,
{¶ 3} In his third assignment of error, Dalton argues that, as applied to him, Foster violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. We have considered and rejected this contention inState v. Smith, Montgomery App. No. 21004;
{¶ 4} "In her reply brief, Durbin does not dispute that State v.Foster, supra, mandates that sentences pending on appeal at the timeFoster was decided, which would include this case, must be reversed, and the cause must be remanded for re-sentencing. Durbin contends that this mandate violates the Ex Post Facto clause of Article
{¶ 5} "We conclude that Durbin's argument that the mandate of the Ohio Supreme Court in Foster violates the United States Constitution is not cognizable in this court. As an Ohio court inferior to the Ohio Supreme Court, we are required to follow its mandates; we lack the jurisdictional power to declare a mandate of the Ohio Supreme Court to be unconstitutional."
{¶ 6} The third assignment is overruled.
{¶ 7} The sentences will be vacated and the matter will be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
BROGAN, J. and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2007 Ohio 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dalton-unpublished-decision-1-19-2007-ohioctapp-2007.