March 15, 2006
Ohio AG response to reconsideration motion in Foster
State Blakely fans may recall that, after the Ohio Supreme Court in Foster found Blakely applicable to Ohio's structured sentencing system and adopted a Booker-type remedy (basics here), the Foster defendants and a supporting amicus filed for reconsideration in the Ohio Supreme Court claiming that the retroactive application of the remedy was unconstitutional. (All the details are here.) Today, the Ohio Attorney General filed a potent amicus brief with the Ohio Supreme Court explaining why it believes the motion for reconsideration is all washed up. You can download this brief here:
Recent posts on Foster:
- Ohio applies Blakely and the Booker remedy!
- What is exactly the Blakely remedy in Ohio?
- Who wins from a Booker remedy? It depends.
- A prosecutor's view on Foster
- A sentencing judge's view on Foster
- Fascinating Foster follow-up on Ohio sentencing reforms
- Ohio defenders seek reconsideration of Foster's retroactive application
March 15, 2006 at 08:39 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ohio AG response to reconsideration motion in Foster:
The AG's brief is misleading. The ex post facto argument was raised in both a supplemental filing prior to oral argument, and also discussed in the oral argument itself! In fact, I mentioned it in a comment I made on this very blog immediately following the oral argument. Just because the AG wasn't paying close enough attention doesn't mean the issue is waived.
Posted by: Jay Macke | Mar 16, 2006 10:20:09 AM