 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Molina-Almaguer11/1/2005
urt from imposing a non-minimum prison sentence under Ohio's felony sentencing statutes, even though the sentencing statutes do not require the jury to find, or the defendant to admit to, the applicable statutory factors that allow a trial court to impose a sentence above the authorized minimum." State v. Newcomb, Franklin App. No. 04AP-1223, 2005-Ohio-4570, at , citing State v. Abdul-Mumin, Franklin App. No. 04AP-485, 2005-Ohio-522. See, also, State v. Cockroft, Franklin App. No. 04AP-608, 2005-Ohio-748, at (trial court's imposition of non-minimum, maximum and consecutive sentences based on facts supporting aggravated circumstances not found by jury or admitted by defendant not in contravention of Blakely); State v. Satterwhite, Franklin App. No. 04AP-964, 2005-Ohio-2823; State v. Baker, Franklin App. No. 05AP-177, 2005-Ohio-4680; State v. Imler, Franklin App. No. 04AP-1246, 2005-Ohio-4241. These cases all support the proposition that "under Ohio's felony sentencing statutes, as long as a court sentences a defendant to a prison term within the stated minimum and maximum terms permitted by law, Blakely is not implicated." State v. Fout, Franklin App. No. 04AP-1139, 2005-Ohio-3151, at ; State v. Sieng, Franklin App. No. 04AP-556, 2005-Ohio-1003, at .
{ } Based upon these authorities, Blakely did not preclude the trial court from imposing non-minimum sentences in the instant case. Therefore, appellant's single assignment of error is overruled.
{ } In accordance with the foregoing, appellant's single assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment and sentence of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BRYANT and PETREE, JJ., concur.
|