State v. January, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. January, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007)

2007 Ohio 435

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

DocketNo. 2006 CA 21.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2007 Ohio 435 (State v. January, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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.

Bluebook

State v. January, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007), 2007 Ohio 435 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION {¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Naamon January, filed March 1, 2006. On January 11, 2006, January pled guilty to one count of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the first degree. The trial court imposed a maximum sentence of ten years and found January to be a habitual sexual offender on February 1, 2006. January asserts the following sole assignment of error:

{¶ 2} "THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON APPELLANT WAS UNLAWFUL IN THAT IT WAS BASED ON FINDINGS UNDER A STATUTE LATER FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSTATE V. FOSTER."

{¶ 3} January relies on State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1,845 N.E.2d 470, 2006-Ohio-856. "Foster established a bright-line rule that anypre-Foster sentence to which the statutorily required findings of fact applied (i.e. more-than-minimum, maximum, and consecutive sentences), pending on direct review at the time that Foster was decided, must be reversed, and the cause remanded for re-sentencing in accordance withFoster, if the sentence is a subject of the appeal." State v.Logsdon, Clark App. No. 2005-CA-66, 2006-Ohio-6833.

{¶ 4} We agree that Foster applies here and that January was sentenced in violation of the rule articulated therein. Accordingly, we sustain Johnson's assignment of error, reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for resentencing consistent with Foster.

WOLFF, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION {¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Naamon January, filed March 1, 2006. On January 11, 2006, January pled guilty to one count of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the first degree. The trial court imposed a maximum sentence of ten years and found January to be a habitual sexual offender on February 1, 2006. January asserts the following sole assignment of error:

{¶ 2} "THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON APPELLANT WAS UNLAWFUL IN THAT IT WAS BASED ON FINDINGS UNDER A STATUTE LATER FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSTATE V. FOSTER."

{¶ 3} January relies on State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1,845 N.E.2d 470, 2006-Ohio-856. "Foster established a bright-line rule that anypre-Foster sentence to which the statutorily required findings of fact applied (i.e. more-than-minimum, maximum, and consecutive sentences), pending on direct review at the time that Foster was decided, must be reversed, and the cause remanded for re-sentencing in accordance withFoster, if the sentence is a subject of the appeal." State v.Logsdon, Clark App. No. 2005-CA-66, 2006-Ohio-6833.

{¶ 4} We agree that Foster applies here and that January was sentenced in violation of the rule articulated therein. Accordingly, we sustain Johnson's assignment of error, reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for resentencing consistent with Foster.

WOLFF, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2007 Ohio 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-january-unpublished-decision-2-2-2007-ohioctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack