2011 Ohio 5203
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ford was convicted in Clark County Common Pleas Court after entering guilty pleas to one count of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition.
- The trial court sentenced Ford to maximum, consecutive prison terms totaling twenty years.
- Ford appealed claiming plain error for consecutive sentences lacking judicial fact-finding under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4).
- Ford argued Hodge revived R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) requirements after Foster invalidated them.
- The appellate court held there was no plain error and affirmed the sentence because Hodge did not revive the fact-finding requirement, as no new affirmative legislative mandate existed at the time of sentencing.
- The court noted that subsequent legislation Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86, requiring such findings, applied prospectively and did not affect Ford
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) findings was plain error | Ford | Ford contends Hodge revived the requirement | No plain error; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (held R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) unconstitutional and required no findings)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (held Ice did not revive the pre-Foster scheme; no findings required)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (SCOTUS decision discussed in Hodge)