State v. Foster
109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's felony sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial if it requires a judge to find additional facts, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant, to impose a sentence greater than the presumptive minimum, a maximum sentence, or consecutive sentences. The proper remedy for such a constitutional violation is to sever the unconstitutional judicial fact-finding provisions, thereby granting trial judges full discretion to sentence within the statutory range.
Facts:
- Andrew Foster broke into multiple business establishments, tampered with safes, stole money and property, forged checks, and was found with cocaine residue upon his arrest.
- Jason Quinones, an adult, engaged in sexual intercourse with three underage girls, aged 12, 14, and 15.
- Robert Adams drove under the influence of drugs, causing an automobile accident that resulted in the deaths of two individuals.
- Jeannett Horn was found to be in possession of more than 100 grams of crack cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Foster pleaded no-contest in the Licking County trial court and was sentenced. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence.
- Jason Quinones pleaded guilty in the Cuyahoga County trial court and was sentenced. The Eighth District Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, vacated his sentence as unconstitutional under Blakely and remanded for resentencing.
- Robert Adams was convicted by a jury in the Lake County trial court and sentenced. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence.
- Jeannett Horn was convicted by a jury in the Ottawa County trial court and sentenced. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed her sentence.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio, the state's highest court, consolidated the four cases and accepted discretionary appeals from the losing party in each appellate decision to resolve the constitutional question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Ohio's felony sentencing statutes, which require judicial fact-finding before a court can impose more-than-minimum, maximum, or consecutive prison terms, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanzinger, J.
Yes, Ohio's felony sentencing statutes violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington, requires that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases a criminal sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Blakely defines the relevant 'statutory maximum' as the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. Several Ohio statutes, including R.C. 2929.14(B) for more-than-minimum sentences, R.C. 2929.14(C) for maximum sentences, and R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) for consecutive sentences, unconstitutionally require judges to make additional factual findings to overcome presumptive sentences. To remedy this, the court severs these unconstitutional provisions, eliminating the mandatory judicial fact-finding. This grants trial courts full discretion to impose a prison sentence anywhere within the statutory range for the convicted offense without making specific findings to justify the sentence.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally restructured Ohio's determinate sentencing system by eliminating the 'guided discretion' framework that required judicial fact-finding for sentences above a presumptive baseline. By adopting a severance remedy akin to that in United States v. Booker, the court shifted significant power back to trial judges, granting them broad discretion to sentence within the statutory range established by the legislature for a given offense. This holding required resentencing for numerous cases pending on direct appeal and established for future cases that the effective 'statutory maximum' for Sixth Amendment purposes in Ohio is the top of the entire sentencing range, not a presumptive minimum or concurrent term.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Foster