STATE v. D.H., 113 Ohio St.3d 1486 (2007)

2007-Ohio-1986

State v. D.H.

No. 2007-0472.Supreme Court of Ohio.
May 2, 2007.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-250, 2006-Ohio-6953.

Motion and Procedural Rulings
On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed February 27, 2007:

Page 1487

“Do constitutional jury trial rights, as articulated under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 5
and 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and as applied to an adult felony sentencing in accordance with State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, also apply, in a pre-Foster sentencing, to findings that a juvenile court has made under Ohio’s adult felony sentencing statutes when the juvenile court imposed the adult portion of a blended juvenile/adult sentence under R.C. 2152.13 of Ohio’s serious youthful offender statutes?”

O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent.

CUPP, J., not participating.

The conflict case is In re Hill, Allen App. No. 1-05-65, 2006-Ohio-2504.

Cause consolidated with 2007-0291, State v. D.H., Franklin App. No. 06AP-250, 2006-Ohio-6953.