House Bill 86 brings back fact finding for stacking
Judge Rastatter took guilty pleas from a defendant on one count of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition. Then Judge Rastatter maxed and stacked the defendant (maximum sentences on each count, all to be served consecutively with each other).
On appeal, the defendant's appointed appellate counsel argued it was plain error for Judge Rastatter to max and stack the defendant's prison terms without making required findings of fact. Judicial findings were required before the decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, by R.C. 2929.14(E)(4). That section was declared unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. After Foster, the only check on Ohio Judges was the "abuse of discretion" standard of review for sentences that were not "contrary to law."
House Bill 86 amended R.C. 2929.14 to put judicial fact finding back between heavy-handed judges and maximum, consecutive sentences. But the requirement for judicial fact finding did not apply to this defendant's case as you can read here in State v. Ford, 2011-Ohio-5203. His only hope was to argue abuse of discretion or to try to get out of his plea. He did neither and his sentence was affirmed on appeal.
If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.
Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com
