State v. Hensley, Unpublished Decision (6-16-1997)
Opinion
On March 13, 1996, appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of robbery in violation of R.C.
On September 3, 1996, appellant filed his petition, alleging that his indefinite sentence constituted a denial of due process of law and cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant claims he was entitled to be resentenced to a definite sentence pursuant to the provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 (hereinafter "Senate Bill 2"). The trial court dismissed appellant's petition.
On appeal, appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his petition without a hearing.
Appellant's primary argument centers on Senate Bill 2 and his claim that he has a right under the bill to be resentenced to a definite term of imprisonment. This legislation, effective July 1, 1996, does not apply to terms of imprisonment imposed for offenses committed prior to the bill's effective date. State v. Carlton (May 28, 1996), Warren App. No. CA96-01-007, unreported. Since appellant was sentenced in April 1996 for a crime committed before that date, Senate Bill 2 clearly does not apply.
Under these circumstances, the trial court correctly denied appellant's petition without a hearing. See State v. Greene (1993),
Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Hensley, Unpublished Decision (6-16-1997) (State v. Hensley, Unpublished Decision (6-16-1997)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.