State v. Jones, 21714 (8-17-2007)
This text of 2007 Ohio 4207 (State v. Jones, 21714 (8-17-2007)) 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
{¶ 3} The possible sentences for the offense to which Jones pled guilty were 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 years imprisonment. The trial court imposed a five-year sentence on August 29, 2005. No appeal was taken.
{¶ 4} In June, 2006, Jones filed a pro se motion "to correct improper sentence." In the memorandum supporting his motion, Jones relied uponBlakely v. Washington (2004),
{¶ 5} The trial court denied Jones's motion to correct his sentence. From the order denying his motion, Jones appeals. *Page 3
II {¶ 6} Jones's sole assignment of error is as follows:
{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO CORRECT IMPROPER SENTENCE."
{¶ 8} On appeal, Jones relies upon State v. Foster, supra, contending that the holding in that case requires the vacation of Jones's sentence and a remand of this cause for re-sentencing under Foster.
{¶ 9} The State points out that in State v. Puckett,
{¶ 10} Paragraphs 104 and 106 of State v. Foster, supra, clearly state that its holding is to be applied to all cases pending on direct review at the time Foster was decided. Although paragraph 103 ofFoster refers to situations where a sentence is deemed void, including, as an express example, where a sentence is void because it does not contain a statutorily mandated term, we conclude that the holding inFoster only rendered sentences in accordance with the parts of the sentencing statute severed by Foster voidable, not void. Otherwise, there would have been no need to specify in the opinion that its holding applied to all cases pending on direct review — the holding would have applied to all sentences, period. We cannot conclude that this is what the Ohio Supreme Court intended in State v. Foster, supra. A retroactive application of the holding in Foster to all more-than-minimum felony sentences imposed under the 1996 *Page 4 Ohio felony sentencing statute would require reversal, remand, and re-sentencing in a vast number of cases, with, as Jones recognizes in his brief, the distinct possibility in each case that the sentence imposed upon re-sentencing would be the same sentence originally imposed.
{¶ 11} Jones's sole assignment of error is overruled.
*Page 1GRADY and DONOVAN, JJ., 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 4207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-21714-8-17-2007-ohioctapp-2007.