State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2006)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2006)

2006 Ohio 1138

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 2006

DocketC.A. No. 21054.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 2006 Ohio 1138 (State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2006)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2006), 2006 Ohio 1138 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION {¶ 1} Shane P. Miller appeals from his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault. In his sole assignment of error, Miller contends the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by making a factual determination to impose a sentence beyond the statutory minimum.

{¶ 2} The essence of Miller's argument is that the trial court contravened Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, when it made a sentencing determination that the shortest prison term would demean the seriousness of his crime. We note, however, that Miller failed to raise this issue in the trial court. We previously have recognized that a defendant waives a Blakely issue by failing to raise it in the trial court. See, e.g.,State v. Goss, Montgomery App. No. 21162, 2006-Ohio-836, at ¶9; State v. Austin, Montgomery App. No. 20445, 2005-Ohio-1035, at ¶ 23-24. We also have declined to find plain error. Id.

{¶ 3} However, the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided Statev. Foster (2006), ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-856, declaring R.C. § 2929.14(B) governing imposition of more than a minimum sentence unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with Foster's mandate, we remand this case for a new sentencing hearing.

{¶ 4} The trial court's judgment is reversed and remanded for resentencing.

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

OPINION {¶ 1} Shane P. Miller appeals from his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault. In his sole assignment of error, Miller contends the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by making a factual determination to impose a sentence beyond the statutory minimum.

{¶ 2} The essence of Miller's argument is that the trial court contravened Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, when it made a sentencing determination that the shortest prison term would demean the seriousness of his crime. We note, however, that Miller failed to raise this issue in the trial court. We previously have recognized that a defendant waives a Blakely issue by failing to raise it in the trial court. See, e.g.,State v. Goss, Montgomery App. No. 21162, 2006-Ohio-836, at ¶9; State v. Austin, Montgomery App. No. 20445, 2005-Ohio-1035, at ¶ 23-24. We also have declined to find plain error. Id.

{¶ 3} However, the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided Statev. Foster (2006), ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-856, declaring R.C. § 2929.14(B) governing imposition of more than a minimum sentence unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with Foster's mandate, we remand this case for a new sentencing hearing.

{¶ 4} The trial court's judgment is reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2006 Ohio 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-unpublished-decision-3-10-2006-ohioctapp-2006.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack