State v. Hodge
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCupp, J.
{¶ 1} In State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, this court held some sections and provisions of Ohio’s sentencing statutes unconstitutional based on the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. *2Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435.
{¶ 2} Among the provisions held unconstitutional in Foster were those requiring a trial judge to make certain findings prior to imposing consecutive sentences, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), and creating presumptively…
2Cases cited12 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. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Oregon v. IceSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by217 opinions
- State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. HoldcroftOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- State v. Sergent (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. RodefferOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
212 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.