State v. Hilderbrand
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Hilderbrand, 2006-Ohio-4384.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ADAMS COUNTY State of Ohio, : Case No. 06CA819 Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : James E. Hilderbrand, Defendant-Appellant. MEMORANDUM : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY : Released 8/21/06 ___________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Sheryl A. Trzaska, Assistant State Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. David C. Kelley, Adams County Prosecutor, and Aaron E. Haslam, Assistant Adams County Prosecutor, West Union, Ohio, for Appellee. ___________________________________________________________________ Harsha, P.J. {ΒΆ1} James Hilderbrand appeals the trial court s judgment, entered on remand from this court, resentencing him to a non-minimum prison term for violating the terms and conditions of his community control sanctions. Hilderbrand contends the new sentence is void because it was imposed under R.C. 2929.14(B), a statute the Supreme Court of Ohio declared unconstitutional in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, after the trial court resentenced Hilderbrand. Because the record reflects that the trial court applied R.C. 2929.14(B), as we instructed it to, we reluctantly must again reverse and remand for resentencing. In light of the Supreme Court's holding in Foster, we conclude any application of an unconstitutional statute Adams App. No. 06CA819 2 renders the entire sentence void even though the surviving sections of the sentencing statute may support the sentence. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. Adams App. No. 06CA819 3 JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED and that the Appellant recover of Appellee costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Adams County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. Abele, J. & Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion. For the Court BY: _____________________________________ William H. Harsha, Presiding Judge NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
