State v. Limoli (Slip Opinion), 140 Ohio St. 3d 188

Amber Limoli was stopped July 16, 2010; a search produced a rock of crack cocaine weighing ~9 grams.
Indicted Nov. 16, 2010 for possession of cocaine (charged as crack) between 5 and 10 grams; suppression motion denied.
Limoli pled no contest on Aug. 18, 2011 to a third-degree felony (pre-H.B. 86 law); sentencing occurred Oct. 14, 2011 (after H.B. 86 effective date).
2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86 (effective Sept. 30, 2011) amended R.C. 2925.11 to eliminate a separate reference to crack and reduced penalties for specified cocaine amounts (e.g., >5 g <10 g now 4th-degree felony).
Trial court sentenced Limoli to mandatory prison under the pre-amendment classification; Tenth District reversed and directed sentencing under amended law; State appealed to Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants convicted pre-H.B. 86 but sentenced after must receive reduced penalties under H.B. 86	State: Amendments changed the offense's wording (no specific mention of crack) so R.C. 1.58(B) inapplicable; Limoli not entitled to reduced penalty	Limoli: H.B. 86 reduces the penalty for cocaine possession (and R.C. 2925.01 defines cocaine to include crack), so she is entitled to the reduced sentence	Held: Defendants convicted before but sentenced after Sept. 30, 2011 receive sentencing under H.B. 86 (reduced penalty applies)

Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (U.S. 2012) (legislative intent governs application of reduced penalties between offense and sentencing)
State v. Taylor, 138 Ohio St.3d 194 (Ohio 2014) (legislature's sentencing amendments apply to offenders sentenced after effective date)
State v. Rush, 83 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1998) (legislative expression of intent controls whether changes in punishment apply)