State v. Cottrill, 2006-Ca-79 (4-26-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jamie Cottrill, appeals the July 12, 2006, Licking County Common Pleas Court's denial of his Motion to Vacate Judgment on the Basis of New Supreme Court Decisions in Accordance with Civil Rule 60(B). Appellant asserts that he was sentenced unconstitutionally when his sentence was enhanced by facts found by a judge, rather than a jury, and as a result argues that he should have been granted re-sentencing. In support of this assertion, appellant argues that the United States Supreme Court decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466,120 S.Ct. 2348, Blakely v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- State v. MilanovichOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Key v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. Sturkey, Ct2006-0087 (10-16-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State v. McDowell, 06ca136 (7-23-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State v. Fanaro, 2007ca137 (10-24-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008