State v. Titus
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Titus, 2006-Ohio-3129.] [Please see nunc pro tunc opinion at 2007-Ohio-1092.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. John F. Boggins, J. -vsCase No. 05CAA07042 TERESA M. TITUS OPINION Defendant-Appellant CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 04CRI07315 JUDGMENT: Vacated and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 20, 2006 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant PAUL L. SCARSELLA Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 140 N. Sandusky Street, 3rd Floor Delaware, Ohio 43015 DAVID H. BIRCH 2 West Winter Street Delaware, Ohio 43015 Delaware County, Case No. 05CAA07042 2 Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Teresa M. Titus appeals her sentence entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following her conviction on numerous counts of forgery, identity fraud, and theft under two separate case numbers, 04-CR-I-07-315 and 04-CR-I-11-482. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 {¶2} Following appellant s entering guilty pleas to the aforementioned charges, the trial court conducted a sentence hearing on June 10, 2005. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of actual imprisonment of five years and eleven months. The trial court ordered some of the sentences to run consecutively, and other sentences to run concurrently. {¶3} Appellant appeals the June 15, 2005 Judgment Entry on Sentence, assigning as error: {¶4} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, SAID SENTENCES BEING CONTRARY TO LAW {¶5} II. APPELLANT WAS IMPROPERLY SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRISON TERM ALLOWED FOR THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED. I & II {¶6} 1 We shall address appellant s assignments of error together. A rendition of the facts is unnecessary for our resolution of appellant s assignments of error. Delaware County, Case No. 05CAA07042 {¶7} 3 In its Sentencing Entry, the trial court found, pursuant to O.R.C. 2929.14 (B), the shortest prison term would demean the seriousness of appellant s conduct and the shortest prison term would not adequately protect the public from future crime. Based upon such finding, the trial court sentenced appellant to more than the minimum term. The trial court also made the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) in ordering some of the sentences to run consecutively. {¶8} Subsequent to the filing of briefs by the parties, the Ohio Supreme Court announced its decision in State v. Foster, ___Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-856. Therein, the Ohio Supreme Court found R.C. 2929.14 (B) and R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) unconstitutional. Id., syllabus nos. 1 and 3, respectively. The Foster Court determined sentences based upon unconstitutional statutes are void and the appropriate disposition is to vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. Id. at para. 103. Based upon Foster, we sustain appellant s assignments of error. Delaware County, Case No. 05CAA07042 {¶9} 4 Appellant s sentence is ordered vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for resentencing. By: Hoffman, P.J. Edwards, J. and Boggins, J. concur ___________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN ___________________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS ___________________________________ HON. JOHN F. BOGGINS Delaware County, Case No. 05CAA07042 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsTERESA M. TITUS Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 05CAA07042 For the reason stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, appellant s sentence is ordered vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Costs assessed to appellee. ___________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN ___________________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS ___________________________________ HON. JOHN F. BOGGINS
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.
