State v. Smith, H-06-039 (6-8-2007)

2007 Ohio 2835
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 8, 2007
DocketNo. H-06-039.
StatusPublished

This text of 2007 Ohio 2835 (State v. Smith, H-06-039 (6-8-2007)) 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. Smith, H-06-039 (6-8-2007), 2007 Ohio 2835 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} This is an accelerated appeal from a sentencing judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas.

{¶ 2} In 2005, appellant, Michael E. Smith, pled guilty to two counts of inducing panic, fourth degree felonies, and attempted voyeurism, a misdemeanor. Appellant had called an elementary school, threatening to kidnap and rape a student. Following a *Page 2 presentence investigation, the trial court sentenced him on the felonies to maximum, consecutive terms of incarceration, 18 months on each count, and an additional 30 days for the misdemeanor.

{¶ 3} In 2006, on appeal, we vacated appellant's sentence pursuant toState v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. State v. Smith, 6th Dist. No. H-05-019, 2006-Ohio-4808, ¶ 6. On remand, the trial court, within its discretion, reimposed the same sentence. Appellant now again appeals his sentence, arguing in a single assignment of error that resentencing under Foster violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of both the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

{¶ 4} On the authority of State v. Coleman, 6th Dist. No. S-06-023,2007-Ohio-448, appellant's sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.

{¶ 5} The sentencing judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal, pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Huron County.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. *Page 3

Peter M. Handwork, J., Arlene Singer, J.Thomas J. Osowik, J. CONCUR.

*Page 1

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

Related

State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (9-15-2006)
2006 Ohio 4808 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Coleman, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007)
2007 Ohio 448 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State v. Foster
845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2007 Ohio 2835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-h-06-039-6-8-2007-ohioctapp-2007.