State v. Ramsey
2011 Ohio 2640
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ramsey pled guilty on January 30, 2006 to amended charges of gross sexual imposition and sexual battery, both third-degree felonies, with sentences of three and four years to run consecutively.
- The Ohio Supreme Court’s Foster decision (2006) excised R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), eliminating judicial fact-finding and presumptions for concurrency in sentencing.
- Ramsey previously pursued a delayed direct appeal (accepted February 2007); this court held Foster allowed discretionary sentencing within the statutory range without R.C. 2929.14 findings.
- On August 13, 2010 Ramsey moved for relief from judgment under Crim.R. 57 and Civ.R. 60(B)(5), arguing that 5145.01 requires concurrent sentences absent the excised provisions.
- The trial court denied the motion on August 16, 2010; Ramsey timely appealed, challenging whether consecutive sentences were permissible after Foster.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Foster excision of E(4) nullify any basis for consecutive sentencing under 5145.01? | Ramsey argues 5145.01 requires concurrency since 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A) were excised. | Ramsey contends absence of those provisions removes any basis to impose consecutive terms. | Consecutive sentencing remains within trial court discretion post-Foster. |
| Is Ramsey's sentence contrary to law after Foster and Bates? | Ramsey asserts the lack of statutory prerequisites makes consecutive sentences improper. | Ramsey relies on Bates to claim no presumption or constraint without those provisions. | No error; the court retains discretion to impose within the statutory range. |
| Did the trial court have authority to deny relief from judgment without an evidentiary hearing? | Crim.R. 57/B Civ.R. 60(B)(5) permitted relief; hearing warranted. | Motion was untimely and a mere substitute for direct appeal; no hearing required. | Appellant's arguments lack merit; no abuse of discretion in denial or lack of hearing. |
| Was Civ.R. 60(B) relief available given res judicata and timing? | Relief should be available to address a sentence entered contrary to law. | Delay and res judicata bar relief; issues could have been raised on direct appeal. | Relief denied; arguments are moot and res judicata prevents reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (excised E(4) and dispensed with judicial findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (2008-Ohio-1983) (reinstated common-law sentencing presumptions after Foster's excisions)
- State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472 (2009-Ohio-3478) (consecutive sentencing within trial court discretion post-Foster)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (confirms lack of statutory limit on concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing after Foster)