Case Name: In re Criminal Sentencing Cases
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2007-10-24
Citations: 116 Ohio St. 3d 31
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Criminal Sentencing Cases.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 116
Pages: 31–33

Head Matter:
In re Criminal Sentencing Cases.
[Cite as In re Criminal Sentencing Cases, 116 Ohio St.3d 31, 2007-Ohio-5551.]
(Submitted October 9, 2007
Decided October 24, 2007.)

Opinion:
{¶ 1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby entered based on our decision in State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306.
I
{¶ 2} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed. If propositions of law are noted, the discretionary appeal was accepted only on those propositions of law:
{¶ 3} 2006-1541. State v. Tribett, Franklin App. No. 04AP-828, 2006-Ohio-3437, 2006 WL 1826749. Proposition of Law No. III.
{¶ 4} 2006-1581. State v. Thacker, Franklin App. No. 05AP-834, 2006-Ohio-3449, 2006 WL 1826079. Affirmed on Proposition of Law Nos. I and II. As to Proposition of Law No. Ill, the cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
{¶ 5} 2006-1687. State v. Silverman, Franklin App. Nos. 05AP-837, 05AP-838, and 05AP-839, 2006-Ohio-3826, 2006 WL 2075642. Proposition of Law No. I.
{¶ 6} 2006-1831. State v. Curtis, Franklin App. No. 05AP-795, 2006-Ohio-4230, 2006 WL 2349455. Proposition of Law No. II.
{¶ 7} 2006-2071. State v. Bartley, Franklin App. No. 06AP-159, 2006-Ohio-4989, 2006 WL 2733042.
{¶ 8} 2006-2101. State v. Jordan, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1330, 2006-Ohio-5208, 2006 WL 2808173. Proposition of Law No. III.
{¶ 9} 2007-0020. State v. Anderson, Franklin App. No. 06AP-174, 2006-Ohio-6152, 2006 WL 3365497. Affirmed on Proposition of Law No. I. As to Proposition of Law No. Ill, the cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
{¶ 10} 2007-0078. State v. Peeks, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1370, 2006-Ohio-6256, 2006 WL 3438669.
{¶ 11} 2007-0092. State v. Coleman, Lorain App. No. 06CA008877, 2006-Ohio-6329, 2006 WL 3478007.
{¶ 12} 2007-0167. State v. McClaskey, Franklin App. No. 05AP-882, 2006-Ohio-6646, 2006 WL 3704036. Proposition of Law No. I.
{¶ 13} 2007-0469. State v. Mansfield, Medina App. No. 06CA0022-M, 2007-Ohio-333, 2007 WL 209986. Proposition of Law No. I.
{¶ 14} 2007-0664. State v. Ragland, Franklin App. No. 04AP-829, 2007-Ohio-836, 2007 WL 612404. Proposition of Law No. I.
II
{¶ 15} The discretionary appeal is accepted in the following case on Proposition of Law No. Ill, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed:
{¶ 16} 2007-1107. State v. Exum, Franklin App. No. 05AP-894, 2007-Ohio-2648, 2007 WL 1560211.
III
{¶ 17} The certified questions are answered in the affirmative in the following cases, and the judgments of the courts of appeals are affirmed. If propositions of law are noted, the consolidated discretionary appeal was accepted only on those propositions of law:
{¶ 18} 2006-1601 and 2006-1793. State v. Newman, Summit App. No. 23038, 2006-Ohio-4082, 2006 WL 2270945. Proposition of Law No. II.
{¶ 19} 2006-1675. State v. Davis, Franklin App. No. 05AP-538, 2006-Ohio-3707, 2006 WL 2022228.
{¶ 20} 2006-1898 and 2006-2116. State v. Daniel, Franklin App. Nos. 05AP-564 and 05AP-683, 2006-Ohio-4627, 2006 WL 2573500. Proposition of Law Nos. II and III.
{¶ 21} 2006-2035 and 2006-2036. State v. Lindsey, Franklin App. Nos. 06AP-189, 06AP-190, and 06AP-191, 2006-Ohio-5203, 2006 WL 2808170.
{¶ 22} 2006-2041 and 2006-2124. State v. Ratliff, Franklin App. No. 06AP-84, 2006-Ohio-5785, 2006 WL 3112104.
{¶ 23} 2006-2042 and 2006-2070. State v. Dennis, Franklin App. No. 05AP-1290, 2006-Ohio-5777, 2006 WL 3113323. Proposition of Law No. I.
{¶ 24} 2006-2360 and 2006-2362. State v. Myers, Wayne App. No. 06CA0003, 2006-Ohio-5958, 2006 WL 3257488. Proposition of Law No. I.
IV
{¶ 25} The discretionary appeal in the following case is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted:
{¶ 26} 2007-0508. State v. Bailey, Medina App. No. 06CA0040-M, 2007-Ohio-455, 2007 WL 313501.
V
{¶ 27} The certified question is answered in the negative in the following case, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with State v. Payne:
{¶ 28} 2007-0666. State v. Gabriel, 170 Ohio App.3d 393, 2007-Ohio-794, 867 N.E.2d 474.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents.