State v. Oller
2017 Ohio 7575
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Timothy M. Oller appealed his sentence, arguing the trial court improperly substituted its own provocation findings for the jury's. The Tenth District originally remanded for the trial court to make statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e).
- The State moved for reconsideration, arguing the specific statutory findings the court ordered were struck down in State v. Foster and never validly reenacted by the legislature.
- The opinion analyzes the statutory history: pre-Foster R.C. 2929.14(D)(2)(b) (2005) was held unconstitutional in Foster; the legislature subsequently repealed and reenacted R.C. 2929.14 in 2006 and again in 2011, reintroducing language similar to that invalidated in Foster.
- The court examines whether the reenacted language represents a valid legislative revival of the Foster-struck findings, concluding that the legislature did not explicitly reenact the unconstitutional findings and therefore they remain unenforceable.
- The court also considers U.S. Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court decisions (Oregon v. Ice and State v. Hunter) that permit limited judicial fact-finding for sentencing and consecutive terms, and notes those decisions reduce the constitutional barrier to judge-made findings for certain sentencing considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts must make the specific R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iv)–(v) findings (recidivism and "demeaning to the seriousness") to impose a repeat-violent-offender enhancement | State: Foster invalidated those findings and the legislature never validly reenacted them; they are not required | Oller: Trial court must state the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e) when imposing the repeat-violent-offender specification | Court: Grant reconsideration; courts need not make the specific (B)(2)(a)(iv)–(v) findings because those were struck down in Foster and not explicitly reenacted |
| Scope of remand instruction under R.C. 2953.08(G)(1) — which findings must trial court state on remand | State: Remand should not compel judge to state Foster-struck findings | Oller: Trial court should state the trier-of-fact findings under (B)(2)(e) as previously instructed | Court: Modify prior instruction — trial court must state findings required by (B)(2)(e) except it is not required to state (B)(2)(a)(iv) and (v) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (severed statutory provisions requiring judicial fact-finding for certain sentence enhancements as unconstitutional)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (trial courts may make limited findings to impose consecutive sentences)
- State v. Hunter, 123 Ohio St.3d 164 (2009) (trial court may consider judicially ascertainable prior-conviction information when designating a repeat violent offender)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (statutory reenactment of text previously held unconstitutional is not necessarily an intent to revive that text)
- Stevens v. Ackman, 91 Ohio St.3d 182 (2001) (when a statute is reenacted or amended, unchanged portions are treated as continuations of the prior statute)