## Facts

- The Ohio Supreme Court consolidated four direct appeals challenging Ohio’s post-1996 felony-sentencing statutes under the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right.
- The challenged scheme set presumptive minimum prison terms and presumptive concurrent sentences, and conditioned certain increased punishments on judicial findings.
- Statutes required judicial fact-finding before imposing: (1) more-than-minimum terms, (2) maximum terms, (3) consecutive terms, and (4) certain major-drug-offender and repeat-violent-offender enhancements.
- The consolidated cases involved defendants sentenced under those provisions, with the parties disputing whether the statutes permitted increases beyond what a jury verdict or guilty plea alone authorized.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio statutes that require judicial fact-finding as a prerequisite to imposing more-than-minimum, maximum, consecutive, or specified enhanced sentences violate the Sixth Amendment as construed in Apprendi and Blakely.
2. If unconstitutional, whether the proper remedy is severance of the offending provisions or some alternative restructuring of the sentencing scheme.
3. Whether sentences imposed under the unconstitutional fact-finding requirements must be vacated and the cases remanded for resentencing.

## Decision

- The court held that statutory provisions requiring judicial fact-finding before imposing sentences exceeding what is authorized by the jury verdict or the defendant’s admissions violate the Sixth Amendment.
- The court declared unconstitutional and severed: R.C. 2929.14(B), R.C. 2929.14(C), and R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) (findings tied to more-than-minimum and maximum terms).
- The court declared unconstitutional and severed: R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and R.C. 2929.41(A) to the extent they required findings for consecutive sentences.
- The court declared unconstitutional: R.C. 2929.14(D)(2)(b) and R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(b) (judicial fact-finding for major-drug-offender and repeat-violent-offender enhancements).
- The court adopted a severance remedy similar to Booker, leaving trial courts discretion to impose any sentence within the basic statutory ranges and to impose consecutive terms without the excised findings.
- The court vacated sentences imposed under the invalid provisions in the consolidated cases and remanded for resentencing under the severed statutory framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under Apprendi and Blakely, any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases punishment beyond the maximum authorized solely by the jury verdict or the defendant’s admissions must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant.
- When a sentencing statute makes an increased term or consecutive sentencing legally available only after judicial fact-finding, the presumptive minimum and presumptive concurrency operate as the relevant ceiling for Sixth Amendment purposes.
- The proper remedy for unconstitutional judicial fact-finding requirements in a structured sentencing scheme may be severance of the offending findings provisions, preserving the remainder of the sentencing code.
- After severance, Ohio trial courts may impose prison terms within the basic statutory ranges and may impose consecutive terms without making the previously required findings, while remaining guided by R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court invalidated and severed statutory provisions that required judges to find facts before imposing more-than-minimum, maximum, consecutive, or specified enhanced felony sentences, held that such requirements violated the Sixth Amendment, and remanded the consolidated cases for resentencing under a scheme that permits sentences within statutory ranges without those findings.


State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006)