Legal Opinion

State v. Brooks, 05 Ma 128 (5-14-2007)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 14, 2007No. 05 MA 128PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

{¶ 1} Appellant Jerome T. Brooks raises issues relating to State v.Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, as part of his postconviction relief filing. Foster held that certain aspects of Ohio's felony sentencing scheme were unconstitutional because they deprived criminal defendants of their Sixth Amendment right to have a jury, rather than the trial judge, decide all facts essential to the crimes forming the basis of the conviction. The felony sentencing issues that were resolved in Foster do not apply to postconviction relief proceedings, and Appellee is correct that…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State v. PerryOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  5. State v. ReynoldsOhio Supreme Court · 1997

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. Schreiber, Ca2006-09-237 (11-13-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API