State v. Sanchez

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Sanchez

884 N.E.2d 66, 117 Ohio St. 3d 1456

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 9, 2008

Docket2008-0429

StatusPublished

This text of 884 N.E.2d 66 (State v. Sanchez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Sanchez, 884 N.E.2d 66, 117 Ohio St. 3d 1456 (Ohio 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Greene App. No. 06-CA-154, 2007-Ohio-6697. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Entry filed February 6, 2008:

“Pursuant to [State v.] Foster [109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856], has R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(b) been severed in its entirety, thereby precluding a trial court from imposing an additional sentence upon a person found to be a major drug offender? Alternatively, has the court’s decision in Foster severed only the violative portion of R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(b) that required the trial court to engage in judicial fact finding before imposing an add-on sentence?”

The conflict cases are State v. Pena, Franklin App. No. 06AP-688, 2007-Ohio-4516, and State v. [1457]*1457Foster, Wood App. No. WD-06-013, 2007-Ohio-1524.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2008-0215, State v. Sanchez, Greene App. No. 06-CA-154, 2007-Ohio-6697.

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

Greene App. No. 06-CA-154, 2007-Ohio-6697. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Entry filed February 6, 2008:

“Pursuant to [State v.] Foster [109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856], has R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(b) been severed in its entirety, thereby precluding a trial court from imposing an additional sentence upon a person found to be a major drug offender? Alternatively, has the court’s decision in Foster severed only the violative portion of R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(b) that required the trial court to engage in judicial fact finding before imposing an add-on sentence?”

The conflict cases are State v. Pena, Franklin App. No. 06AP-688, 2007-Ohio-4516, and State v. [1457]*1457Foster, Wood App. No. WD-06-013, 2007-Ohio-1524.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2008-0215, State v. Sanchez, Greene App. No. 06-CA-154, 2007-Ohio-6697.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

884 N.E.2d 66, 117 Ohio St. 3d 1456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sanchez-ohio-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack