State v. McCoy, 07ap-955 (5-22-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. McCoy, 07ap-955 (5-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 2461

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 2008

DocketNo. 07AP-955.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2008 Ohio 2461 (State v. McCoy, 07ap-955 (5-22-2008)) 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. McCoy, 07ap-955 (5-22-2008), 2008 Ohio 2461 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Rebecca S. McCoy, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶ 2} On December 28, 2006, a Franklin County grand jury indicted appellant on four counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02. Appellant eventually entered a guilty plea *Page 2 to three of those counts. The fourth count was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea, found her guilty, and sentenced her to consecutive 12-month prison terms for each count, for a total prison term of three years.

{¶ 3} Appellant appeals and assigns the following error:

The trial court erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences.

{¶ 4} Appellant did not raise any objections to her sentencing and, therefore, has waived all but plain error. State v. Hairston, Franklin App. No. 06AP-420, 2007-Ohio-143, at ¶ 34. In her assignment of error, appellant contends that the Supreme Court of Ohio's severance remedy inState v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, as applied to her case, violates due process and ex post facto principles. She claims that the Foster severance remedy deprived her of the statutory presumption in favor of minimum, concurrent sentences that existed at the time of her offenses. We disagree.

{¶ 5} Appellant committed her crimes in July 2006, entered her guilty plea in September 2007, and was sentenced in October 2007, all after theFoster decision was rendered in February 2006. Thus, the Foster remedy was not applied retroactively to appellant's case. State v.Hawkins, Jefferson App. No. 07 JE 14, 2008-Ohio-1529, at ¶ 21; State v.Kindle, Hancock App. No. 5-07-11, 2007-Ohio-6422, at ¶ 11.

{¶ 6} Even if the Foster severance remedy had been applied retoractively, this court has consistently rejected appellant's due process and ex post facto arguments. State v. Jordan, Franklin App. No. 07AP-52, 2007-Ohio-5097, at ¶ 5. Moreover, to the extent appellant takes issue with the Foster court's choice of the severance remedy, this court is bound to follow a decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio and we cannot overrule that court's decision or declare it unconstitutional. State v.Ragland, Franklin *Page 3 App. No. 04AP-829, 2007-Ohio-836, at ¶ 8. Therefore, we overrule appellant's single assignment of error.

{¶ 7} Having overruled appellant's assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Judgment affirmed.

BRYANT and FRENCH, JJ., concur.

*Page 1

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

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Rebecca S. McCoy, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶ 2} On December 28, 2006, a Franklin County grand jury indicted appellant on four counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02. Appellant eventually entered a guilty plea *Page 2 to three of those counts. The fourth count was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea, found her guilty, and sentenced her to consecutive 12-month prison terms for each count, for a total prison term of three years.

{¶ 3} Appellant appeals and assigns the following error:

The trial court erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences.

{¶ 4} Appellant did not raise any objections to her sentencing and, therefore, has waived all but plain error. State v. Hairston, Franklin App. No. 06AP-420, 2007-Ohio-143, at ¶ 34. In her assignment of error, appellant contends that the Supreme Court of Ohio's severance remedy inState v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, as applied to her case, violates due process and ex post facto principles. She claims that the Foster severance remedy deprived her of the statutory presumption in favor of minimum, concurrent sentences that existed at the time of her offenses. We disagree.

{¶ 5} Appellant committed her crimes in July 2006, entered her guilty plea in September 2007, and was sentenced in October 2007, all after theFoster decision was rendered in February 2006. Thus, the Foster remedy was not applied retroactively to appellant's case. State v.Hawkins, Jefferson App. No. 07 JE 14, 2008-Ohio-1529, at ¶ 21; State v.Kindle, Hancock App. No. 5-07-11, 2007-Ohio-6422, at ¶ 11.

{¶ 6} Even if the Foster severance remedy had been applied retoractively, this court has consistently rejected appellant's due process and ex post facto arguments. State v. Jordan, Franklin App. No. 07AP-52, 2007-Ohio-5097, at ¶ 5. Moreover, to the extent appellant takes issue with the Foster court's choice of the severance remedy, this court is bound to follow a decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio and we cannot overrule that court's decision or declare it unconstitutional. State v.Ragland, Franklin *Page 3 App. No. 04AP-829, 2007-Ohio-836, at ¶ 8. Therefore, we overrule appellant's single assignment of error.

{¶ 7} Having overruled appellant's assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Judgment affirmed.

BRYANT and FRENCH, JJ., concur.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2008 Ohio 2461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mccoy-07ap-955-5-22-2008-ohioctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack