State v. Thrasher, Wd-06-047 (6-8-2007)State v. Thrasher, Wd-06-047 (6-8-2007)
{¶ 1} Appellant, Leslie Thrasher, appeals from a judgment of sentence entered against her by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas in the above-captioned case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Appellant pled guilty to two counts of rape. On June 20, 2005, the trial court sentenced her to serve eight years in prison on each count, with the terms for each
{¶ 3} I. “THE IMPOSITION OF AN ABOVE THE MINIMUM TERM OF INCARCERATION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF STATE V. FOSTER WAS CONTRARY TO LAW.”
{¶ 4} Appellant argues that the trial court imposed an unlawful sentence because the severance remedy outlined in Foster, supra, violates: 1) the legislative intent of Senate Bill 2; 2) principles of due process; and 3) the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution.
{¶ 5} Appellant states that these arguments are substantially the same as those that were made before the United States Supreme Court in Foster‘s petition for a writ of certiorari under “Andrew K. Foster v. State of Ohio, Filed (Jul. 11, 2006) (NO. 06-5969).” As appellant should now be aware, the United States Supreme Court denied that petition in Foster v. Ohio (2006), 127 S.Ct. 442, 166 L.Ed.2d 314.
{¶ 6} Not only has the United States Supreme Court declined to review the matter, but the Ohio Supreme Court has likewise refused to reconsider its Foster decision in light of the Ex Post Facto and due process arguments. See State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1408, 2006-Ohio-1703 (Table, No. 2004-1568); State v. Quinones, 109 Ohio St.3d 1408, 2006-Ohio-1703 (Table, No. 2004-1771). In Foster, itself, the Supreme Court of
{¶ 7} As an intermediate appellate court, we are bound by the Ohio Supreme Court‘s decision in Foster, and cannot overrule it or declare it unconstitutional. See State v. Sheets, 12th Dist. No. CA2006-04-032, 2007-Ohio-1799, ¶ 16.
{¶ 8} In addition, we note that this court has previously considered the Ex Post Facto and due process arguments, and has rejected them each time. See State v. Coleman, 6th Dist. No. S-06-023, 2007-Ohio-448; State v. Friess, 6th Dist. No. L-05-1307, 2007-Ohio-2030.
{¶ 9} Appellant‘s eight-year terms, which were well within the three to ten year range for the offense of rape, were properly imposed. Accordingly, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.
{¶ 10} For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Peter M. Handwork, J., JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J., William J. Skow, J, CONCUR.