Does 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Decision Require Ohio to Follow Former Law In Imposing Consecutive Sentences?
Sentencing Provisions Voided as Unconstitutional in 2006 ‘Foster’ Decision State of Ohio v. Kenneth Hodge, Case no. 2009-1997 1st District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County) ISSUE: In State v. Foster (2006), the Supreme Court of Ohio severed (declared unenforceable) on constitutional grounds two provisions of Ohio’s criminal sentencing statute that authorized judges (rather than juries) to make factual findings that supported: 1) the imposition of a non-minimum sentence on an offender for a single criminal offense and 2) the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences on an offender convicted of multiple crimes. By severing those provisions, the Foster decision effectively gave Ohio trial court judges full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory sentencing range for a defendant’s offense, and to determine whether it was appropriate for an offender convicted of multiple crimes to serve his sentences for those crimes concurrently (at the same time) or cons
