Did Court’s 2006 ‘Foster’ Decision Violate Offenders’ Presumptive Right to Minimum, Concurrent Sentences?
State of Ohio v. Phillip L. Elmore, Case no. 2007-0475 5 th District Court of Appeals (Licking County) ISSUE: Did the Supreme Court of Ohio’s February 2006 decision in State v. Foster violate offenders’ constitutional rights by allowing courts to resentence an offender whose offense was committed before Foster was announced to non-minimum or consecutive sentences without factual findings being made by a jury to support such a sentence? BACKGROUND: In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for a criminal defendant’s sentence to be enhanced beyond the minimum penalties applicable to his crime based on factual findings made by a trial court unless those findings were made by a jury (rather than by the judge). In State v. Foster, announced on Feb. 27, 2006, the Supreme Court of Ohio analyzed Ohio’s felony sentencing scheme in light of Apprendi and Blakely and ruled that the portions of Ohio’s criminal sentenci
