Popular Posts
-
In State v. McCree , the 12th Appellate District of Ohio upheld the 17 + 6 month sentence for trafficking cocaine + possession of cocaine. T...
-
This blog will follow criminal law developments in Ohio. We will reference recent court decisions, as well as popular news articles related...
-
Bruce Sims was wanted for allegedly raping a minor just after midnight on Tuesday, April 19, 2011. He voluntarily turned himself in later t...
-
Typically, Ohio law prohibits a defendant from being sentenced for two crimes if the underlying conduct is the same for both crimes and if t...
-
USA Today is reporting that Andrew Kelley's bond was denied on Friday. Kelley is being held for murder charges related to the shooting d...
-
Trustee Carl Walker was indicted on March 4, 2011 for various crimes, relating to contracts he entered into with his son's company on be...
-
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio handed down another opinion regarding allied offenses . We previously explained allied offense...
-
Pursuant to R.C. 2945.71, defendants in Ohio have a right to a trial within 45 days. The issue in State v. Ignat, at the 12th District Cour...
-
Tiffani Calise, charged with murdering an infant that she was babysitting, is awaiting trial in jail. She is pregnant, and requested a mate...
-
Ryan Widmer, convicted in the drowning death of his wife, previously brought a motion for a new trial related to accusations, including othe...
Monday, February 28, 2011
State v. Ford - firearm specification provision upheld in sentencing
Typically, Ohio law prohibits a defendant from being sentenced for two crimes if the underlying conduct is the same for both crimes and if the crimes were committed for a single purpose. In other words, the law protects us from being sentenced for two crimes as a result of one act. The issue presented before the Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Ford, was whether a defendant may be sentenced for an unlawful discharge of a firearm (in or at a residence) and for possession of a gun while committing that felony. The trial court convicted the defendant of both offenses, and sentenced him to three years in jail for each offense - for a combined sentence of six years. The Supreme Court affirmed and held that sentencing the defendant for each offense did not violate R.C. 2941.25. To reach that conclusion, the Court found that the defendant was only sentenced for the unlawful discharge charge, and that the possession of the gun while committing the felony permitted an additional 3 years to be added to the sentence. While it is a counterintuitive decision, it does follow the letter of the law and has a strong logical basis. What do you think about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment