State v. Lloyd, 2007-L-029 (10-12-2007)State v. Lloyd, 2007-L-029 (10-12-2007)
OPINION
{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael A. Lloyd, appeals from the January 16, 2007 judgment entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, which resentenced him post-Foster to concurrent prison terms of four years for two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, in violation of
Statement of Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 3} On June 24, 2005, appellant entered a written plea of guilty to two counts of robbery in violation of
{¶ 4} On September 9, 2005, appellant timely filed an appeal to this court, where we remanded for resentencing pursuant to State v. Foster (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, on December 12, 2006.
{¶ 5} Accordingly, appellant was resentenced on January 8, 2007 to serve the same sentence imposed previously.
{¶ 6} Appellant now timely appeals, raising the following five assignments of error:
{¶ 7} “[1.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to more-than-the-minimum prison terms in violation of the due process and ex post facto clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
{¶ 8} “[2.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to more-than-the minimum prison terms in violation of defendant-appellant‘s right to due process.
{¶ 9} “[3.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to more-than-the-minimum prison terms based on the Ohio Supreme Court‘s severance of the offending provisions under Foster, which was an act in violation of the principle of separation of powers.
{¶ 10} “[4.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to more-than-the-minimum prison terms contrary to the rule of lenity.
{¶ 11} “[5.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to more-than-the-minimum prison terms contrary to the intent of the Ohio legislators.”
{¶ 12} We note that the issues contained in appellant‘s five assignments of error have recently been raised and rejected by this court in numerous prior decisions. See State v. Lewis, 11th Dist. 2006-L-224, 2007-Ohio-3014, State v. Schaub, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-126, 2007-Ohio-2853, State v. Green, 11th Dist. Nos. 2005-A-0069 and 2005-A-0070, 2006-Ohio-6695; State v. Elswick, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-075, 2006-Ohio-7011; State v. Asbury, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-097, 2007-Ohio-1073; State v. Anderson, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-142, 2007-Ohio-1062; State v. Spicuzza, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-141, 2007-Ohio-783.
{¶ 13} These same arguments have also been consistently rejected by other Ohio appellate districts and federal courts. See State v. Gibson, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-509, 2006-Ohio-6899; State v. Moore, 3d Dist. No. 1-06-51, 2006-Ohio 6860; United States v. Portillo-Quezada (C.A.10 2006), 469 F.3d 1345, 1354-1356, and the cases cited therein.
{¶ 14} Thus, based on our prior decisions, appellant‘s assignments of error are without merit.
{¶ 15} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concur.