The Ohio Supreme Court today held that “when a court of appeals reviews sentences imposed for multiple crimes and specifications, it may not vacate & remand the defendant’s entire sentence when it finds error in only the sanction imposed for one of the specifications.” Further, the appeals court has to decide each assignment of error raised and give reasons for its decisions unless an assignment has been made moot by a ruling on another assignment.
The case was one in which a man was found guilty of multiple offenses & specifications, and sentenced to an aggregate term of 14 years to life. On review, the 8th. District Court of Appeals affirmed convictions on rape, kidnapping, and a repeat violent offender specification, but decided that the trial court erroneously convicted the man of a firearm specification, and failed to make findings required by ORC §2929.14(D)(2)(b) when it imposed an additional three-year term for the repeat violent offender specification. The appeals court then vacated the entire sentence, remanding the case for resentencing without addressing a claim brought for retaliatory sentencing, stating that its decision to vacate the entire sentence because of the error with respect to the repeat violent offender specification “rendered moot the remaining alleged sentence errors.”
The current decision cites State v. Foster, State v. Mathis, and State v. Saxon, all subsequent to this case’s 2005 appeal, and remands back to the appeals court with a directive to “decide and give written reasons for its decision on the claim of retaliatory sentencing, and adjust its resentencing order in conformity with Foster, Mathis, and Saxon.
Opinion
(Court’s summary)
Appeals court decision
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment