State v. Rodriguez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Rodriguez, 2006-Ohio-1223.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-05-1146 Appellee Trial Court No. CR-2004-1660 v. Joseph Rodriguez DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Appellant Decided: March 17, 2006 ***** Julia R. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney, Bruce J. Sorg and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. Neil Stewart McElroy, for appellant. ***** PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joseph Rodriguez, appeals the September 17, 2004 judgment entry of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas which, following a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25, sentenced appellant to four years of imprisonment for possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(d). Appellant raises the following assignments of error: {¶2} "Assignment of Error No. 1: {¶3} "In sentencing the appellant to more than the statutory maximum [a nonminimum sentence], the trial court relied on facts not within the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant, contrary to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in USA v. Booker and Blakely v. Washington. {¶4} "Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶5} "In sentencing the appellant, the court failed to make its statutorily sanctioned findings on the record at the sentencing hearing, as required by R.C. § 2929.14(B) and the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Comer." {¶6} Upon review, we find that this case is controlled by the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in State v. Foster, ___ Ohio St.3d. ___, 2006-Ohio-856. In Foster, the court held that R.C. 2929.14(B) violates the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466. Although it is unclear whether the trial court impermissibly relied on R.C. 2929.14(B), upon review of the record, including the codefendant's case, and in order to ensure that appellant's constitutional rights are protected, we find that the sentence is void and must be vacated. Foster at ¶ 103-104. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is found well-taken. {¶7} Based on our disposition of appellant's first assignment of error, we find that appellant's second assignment of error is moot and not well-taken. {¶8} On consideration whereof, we find that the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and appellant's sentence is vacated. The matter is 2. remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing in accordance with Foster, supra. The state is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Lucas County. JUDGMENT REVERSED. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98. Peter M. Handwork, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. Dennis M. Parish, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE _______________________________ JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio's Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court's web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6. 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.
