High court upholds ’06 sentencing ruling

COLUMBUS (AP) — The Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a criminal sentencing decision it made in 2006, rebuffing the claims of a defendant who argued the ruling violated his rights to a jury trial and due process.

The ruling affirms judges’ wide discretion to impose sentences within specified guidelines, but the opposing attorney argued that the Ohio Supreme Court didn’t properly apply the federal court’s laws.

In 2006, the court issued an overhaul in criminal sentencing procedures, making Ohio’s laws compliant with U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court rulings deemed it unconstitutional for a judge to consider evidence not presented in a jury trial to give a defendant a greater sentence than the minimum allowed for a particular crime.

Such evidence can include a defendant’s criminal history.

The Supreme Court ruling also found it unconstitutional for a judge to consider additional evidence when handing out consecutive instead of concurrent sentences.

Ohio law at the time required a judge to consider additional evidence not presented during a jury trial to boost sentences beyond the minimum or to give consecutive sentences.

The Ohio Supreme Court got rid of this requirement in its 2006 ruling reacting to the U.S. Supreme decision to avoid claims that Ohio law violated U.S. Constitutional rights to trial by jury. Numerous defendants, mainly repeat offenders and serious drug offenders, had challenged Ohio’s sentencing laws in light of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

All criminal cases awaiting appeal at the time the case were decided were sent back to the trial courts so that sentences could be given under the new sentencing law.

The case of Phillip Elmore of Newark, who is sitting on death row for the 2002 murder of Pamela Annarino, was one of the cases returned to trial court. The legal questions do not involve his conviction for murder or death sentence, however.

Elmore was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and grand theft for crimes committed leading up to and following the murder.

The trial judge made a decision that the seriousness of Elmore’s crimes merited sentences beyond the minimum set forth in guidelines, and issued consecutive sentences for three of the counts.

But the second time around, the trial court gave Elmore the same sentence for those crimes, which essentially amounted to a life term. Elmore appealed, arguing that the sentence violated his constitutional rights.

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed Tuesday, saying that the 2006 ruling gave judges the discretion to impose any sentence within the guidelines prescribed by law.

The 2006 ruling had simply stripped the requirement that the judge first consider additional evidence, the court ruled Tuesday. Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger said that defendants aren’t required to receive a minimum sentence if no additional findings are made.

The court also denied Elmore’s claim that the sentence amounted to a violation of “after the fact” laws that prevent a change in punishment for a crime that was committed before the change went into effect.

Keith Yeazel, Elmore’s attorney, said he will recommend to his client that he appeal the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yeazel said the U.S. Supreme Court has found that no more than the minimum sentence can be applied unless additional evidence is considered.

He also said Ohio law directs judges to issue concurrent sentences except under certain conditions.

“The Ohio Supreme Court has decided that they don’t want to do what the Ohio General Assembly said they should do,” Yeazel said.