Were Criminal Sentences Not Under ‘Direct Appeal’ When State v. Foster Decided Affected by Decision?
State of Ohio v. William J. Silsby, Case no. 2007-1254 11th District Court of Appeals (Geauga County) ISSUE: If a criminal offender’s sentence was imposed under Ohio’s pre-2006 felony sentencing statute and a direct appeal of his sentence was not pending on the date the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its ruling in State v. Foster, but the offender later was granted leave to file a delayed appeal challenging the legality of his sentence, is that offender entitled to be resentenced under the Foster decision? BACKGROUND: In Blakely v. Washington, decided in June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for a criminal defendant’s sentence to be enhanced beyond the minimum penalties applicable to his crime unless factual findings justifying a non-minimum sentence were made by a jury, rather than by a judge. In State v. Foster, decided in February 2006, the Supreme Court of Ohio analyzed Ohio’s felony sentencing scheme in light of Blakely and ruled that the portion of the
Related Questions
- Why is it important to run a county criminal background check if we allready order a state or national criminal records check?
- In the event of reversal can the State seek further review of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision?
- Were Criminal Sentences Not Under ‘Direct Appeal’ When State v. Foster Decided Affected by Decision?
