State v. Brooks
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Brooks, 2006-Ohio-2371.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 3-05-31 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. OPINION JONATHAN N. BROOKS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court. JUDGMENT: Sentence vacated and cause remanded. DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 15, 2006 ATTORNEYS: PATRICK T. MURPHY Attorney at Law Reg. #0007722 153 Washington Square Bucyrus, OH 44820 For Appellant. CLIFFORD MURPHY Prosecuting Attorney Reg. #0063519 112 E. Mansfield Street, Suite 305 Bucyrus, OH 44820 For Appellee. Case No. 3-05-31 BRYANT, P.J. {¶1} The defendant-appellant, Jonathan N. Brooks ( Brooks ), appeals the judgment of the Crawford County Common Pleas Court sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of six years. {¶2} On May 9, 2005, the Crawford County Grand Jury returned a two count indictment against Brooks. The indictment charged Brooks with two counts of rape, violations of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), felonies of the first degree. On July 19, 2005, the State of Ohio ( State ) and Brooks entered into a negotiated plea. The State amended the indictment to charge Brooks with two counts of gross sexual imposition, violations of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), and Brooks withdrew his previously tendered pleas of not guilty and pled guilty to the amended charges. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 21, 2005 and filed its sentencing judgment entry on November 22, 2005. The court ordered Brooks to serve two consecutive three year prison terms, for an aggregate sentence of six years in prison. Brooks appeals the trial court s judgment and asserts the following assignment of error: The sentencing court erred by imposing consecutive sentences in violation of the mandates set forth within 2929.19 and 2929.14 of the Ohio Revised Code. {¶3} In the sole assignment of error, Brooks contends the trial court erred by sentencing him to consecutive sentences because it failed to make the findings 2 Case No. 3-05-31 required by R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), and it failed to state its reasons to support the findings. In a supplemental brief, Brooks contends the trial court s sentence should be reversed in light of the Ohio Supreme Court s holding in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. In Foster, the court found R.C. 2929.14(E) unconstitutional because it requires trial courts to make findings based on facts that have either not been determined by a jury or not been admitted by the defendant. Foster, supra at paragraph 3 of the syllabus (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435; Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403). Because the Supreme Court found R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) unconstitutional, it determined that the sentences imposed in pending cases and those cases on direct appeal are void and must be remanded to the trial courts. Id. at ¶¶ 103-104. Therefore, we are required to vacate Brooks sentence and remand this cause to the trial court for additional proceedings. {¶4} The sentence of the Crawford County Common Pleas Court is vacated, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. Sentence vacated and cause remanded. SHAW and CUPP, JJ., concur. r 3
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.
