State v. Harper, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)
This text of 2006 Ohio 1653 (State v. Harper, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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} On appeal, appellant advances two assignments of error for our review, as follows:
1. The trial court erred to the substantial prejudice of the defendant by imposing the maximum penalty of eight (8) years of imprisonment.
2. The trial court erred to the substantial prejudice of the defendant by imposing the maximum sentence based upon facts to which the defendant did not stipulate. This violated the defendant's rights under the
{¶ 3} We begin by addressing appellant's second assignment of error because it is dispositive of this appeal. Therein, appellant argues that the trial court imposed the maximum sentence in violation of the jury trial principles afforded by the
{¶ 4} Our disposition of appellant's second assignment of error renders his first assignment of error moot.
{¶ 5} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled as moot and his second assignment of error is sustained, appellant's sentence is vacated, and this cause is remanded to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas for resentencing pursuant toFoster. Judgment reversed; and cause remanded for resentencing.
Klatt, P.J., and Bryant, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2006 Ohio 1653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harper-unpublished-decision-3-31-2006-ohioctapp-2006.