State v. Foster
2012 Ohio 4199
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Foster attacked Michael Davis in a Medina County apartment on June 1, 2011, leading to indictment by the Medina County Grand Jury on June 8, 2011.
- Foster pled guilty to attempted murder (F1), aggravated burglary (F1), and tampering with evidence (F3); sentences: 10 years, 3 years, and 3 years respectively.
- The trial court ordered the attempt murder and tampering sentences to run concurrently, with those concurrent terms running consecutively to the aggravated burglary term for a total of 13 years.
- Christine Dettweiller was also indicted in connection with the same incident.
- Foster appeals challenging (1) the imposition of maximum consecutive sentences under State v. Foster and HB 86, and (2) the total 13-year sentence in light of Dettweiller’s sentence and similar conduct.
- The court cites State v. Foster and Kalish for the review standard and notes a presentence investigation report was prepared but not in the appellate record, leading to a presumption of proper use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences | Foster argues the court violated sentencing statutes. | State contends discretion to impose within statutory ranges; no required findings. | Overruled; sentences within statutory ranges; no mandatory findings required. |
| Whether the 13-year total sentence was disproportionate to Dettweiller’s sentence | Foster claims disproportionality relative to co‑defendant. | State maintains no due process or proportionality violation. | Overruled; sentence within statutory framework and reviewed under Kalish. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (two-step review; discretion within statutory range; no need for findings for max/consecutive sentences)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step review framework for appellate review of sentencing)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (further articulation of discretionary sentencing within statutory range)
- State v. Bennett, 2012-Ohio-3664 (9th Dist.) (presumption of prior-presentence information used in sentencing)