State v. Latham, 2005 Ca 25 (5-25-2007)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Latham, 2005 Ca 25 (5-25-2007)

2007 Ohio 2599

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 25, 2007

DocketNo. 2005 CA 25.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2007 Ohio 2599 (State v. Latham, 2005 Ca 25 (5-25-2007)) 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. Latham, 2005 Ca 25 (5-25-2007), 2007 Ohio 2599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION {¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Kevin S. Latham, filed July 13. 2005. Latham was indicted on February 17, 2005, on one count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C.2919.25(A), and two counts of disrupting public service, in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A)(3). Latham entered pleas of not guilty, which he later withdrew. On April 7, 2005, *Page 2 Latham pled guilty to domestic violence, and the other charges against him were dismissed. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence, a five year prison term, on May 31, 2005. Latham was appointed appellate counsel who, on October 19, 2005, filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.California (1967), 386. U.S. 738. We determined that at least one issue has arguable merit for appeal and appointed new counsel for Latham. Latham asserts one assignment of error as follows:

{¶ 2} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MR. LATHAM TO THE MAXIMUM FIVE YEAR TERM AS THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH MR. LATHAM'S SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. [2929.14(c)]"

{¶ 3} Latham 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} The State concedes that Foster applies here and that Latham was sentenced in violation of the rule articulated therein. We agree. Accordingly, we sustain Latham's assignment of error, reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for resentencing consistent withFoster.

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

*Page 1

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 Kevin S. Latham, filed July 13. 2005. Latham was indicted on February 17, 2005, on one count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C.2919.25(A), and two counts of disrupting public service, in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A)(3). Latham entered pleas of not guilty, which he later withdrew. On April 7, 2005, *Page 2 Latham pled guilty to domestic violence, and the other charges against him were dismissed. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence, a five year prison term, on May 31, 2005. Latham was appointed appellate counsel who, on October 19, 2005, filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.California (1967), 386. U.S. 738. We determined that at least one issue has arguable merit for appeal and appointed new counsel for Latham. Latham asserts one assignment of error as follows:

{¶ 2} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MR. LATHAM TO THE MAXIMUM FIVE YEAR TERM AS THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH MR. LATHAM'S SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. [2929.14(c)]"

{¶ 3} Latham 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} The State concedes that Foster applies here and that Latham was sentenced in violation of the rule articulated therein. We agree. Accordingly, we sustain Latham's assignment of error, reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for resentencing consistent withFoster.

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

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2007 Ohio 2599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-latham-2005-ca-25-5-25-2007-ohioctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack