State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (4-27-2006)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (4-27-2006)

2006 Ohio 2089

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 27, 2006

DocketNo. 86664.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2006 Ohio 2089 (State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (4-27-2006)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (4-27-2006), 2006 Ohio 2089 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Carl Woods ("defendant"), challenges the maximum, consecutive sentences imposed upon him by the trial court for his convictions of attempted murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery. For the reasons that follow, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing.

{¶ 2} Defendant's sole assignment of error provides:

{¶ 3} "I. The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant to maximum and consecutive prison terms where the defendant who previously had not served a prison term has plead guilty to three felonies of the first degree all of which arose from a single incidence."

{¶ 4} The trial court imposed maximum, consecutive sentences pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 2929.14(B), (C), and (E), which the Ohio Supreme Court has since declared unconstitutional and excised from the statutory scheme. State v. Foster, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-856, ¶¶ 1-4, applying United States v.Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220; Blakely v. Washington (2004),542 U.S. 296; and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466. As a result, "[t]rial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences."Foster, at paragraph 7 of the syllabus and State v. Mathis ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-855, paragraph 3 of the syllabus. Nonetheless, defendants that were sentenced under unconstitutional and now void statutory provisions must be resentenced. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856, ¶¶ 103-106.

{¶ 5} Pursuant to the mandates of Foster, we sustain defendant's assignment of error, vacate defendant's sentence, and remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing.

Sentence vacated; cause remanded for resentencing.

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee his costs herein taxed.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. Sentence vacated and case remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Karpinski, J., and Corrigan, J., concur.

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

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Carl Woods ("defendant"), challenges the maximum, consecutive sentences imposed upon him by the trial court for his convictions of attempted murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery. For the reasons that follow, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing.

{¶ 2} Defendant's sole assignment of error provides:

{¶ 3} "I. The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant to maximum and consecutive prison terms where the defendant who previously had not served a prison term has plead guilty to three felonies of the first degree all of which arose from a single incidence."

{¶ 4} The trial court imposed maximum, consecutive sentences pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 2929.14(B), (C), and (E), which the Ohio Supreme Court has since declared unconstitutional and excised from the statutory scheme. State v. Foster, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-856, ¶¶ 1-4, applying United States v.Booker (2005), 543 U.S. 220; Blakely v. Washington (2004),542 U.S. 296; and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466. As a result, "[t]rial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences."Foster, at paragraph 7 of the syllabus and State v. Mathis ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-855, paragraph 3 of the syllabus. Nonetheless, defendants that were sentenced under unconstitutional and now void statutory provisions must be resentenced. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856, ¶¶ 103-106.

{¶ 5} Pursuant to the mandates of Foster, we sustain defendant's assignment of error, vacate defendant's sentence, and remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing.

Sentence vacated; cause remanded for resentencing.

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee his costs herein taxed.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. Sentence vacated and case remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Karpinski, J., and Corrigan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2006 Ohio 2089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-woods-unpublished-decision-4-27-2006-ohioctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack