About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

47 Clev. St. L. Rev. 533 (1999)
Appellate Review under the New Felony Sentencing Guidelines: Where Do We Stand

handle is hein.journals/clevslr47 and id is 543 raw text is: APPELLATE REVIEW UNDER THE NEW FELONY SENTENCING GUIDELINES: WHERE DO WE STAND? MARK P. PAINTER' I. SENATE B ILL 2 ..................................................................... 537 II. FRAM EW ORK ....................................................................... 538 III. WHERE Do WE STAND? ...................................................... 539 A. Abuse-of-Discretion Standard ..................................... 541 B. The Plain-Language Approach .................................... 543 IV . W HAT'S N EXT? .................................................................... 545 V . A FTERW ORD ........................................................................ 546 When allegedly comprehensive new legislation is enacted, courts often struggle to define the parameters of the new laws. Terms undefined by the legislature need defining. The policies behind the laws need explanation. And standards of review need to be clarified. Inevitably, the new laws will cause some confusion in the courts-a confusion that may linger for many years. Effective July 1, 1996, the Ohio legislature revised the state's felony-sentencing guidelines. Previously, there were almost no guidelines, only maximum and sometimes minimum penalties for offenses. The new legislation, which is commonly referred to as Senate Bill 2,2 has received much attention in the courts. Scores of cases have interpreted various aspects of the guidelines. As might be expected, these interpretations have not been entirely consistent. A case from the Ohio First District Court of Appeals in Hamilton County, on which I am a judge, illustrates some of the different interpretations of the new guidelines. The case, State v. Mushrush, involved Christopher Mushrush, an eighteen-year-old with a drug problem.3 On April 23, 1998, he took a handful of pills, flipped out, and somehow ended up at a talent show at Oak Hills High School in Cincinnati. In his drug-induced state, he released pepper spray into a crowd of about four hundred people.4 As the cloud of spray spread through the auditorium, the crowd began to panic and rush to the exits. The spray affected two people in the crowd. One, a sixteen- year-old named Amanda Hartmian, got the spray in her eyes and had difficulty 'Mark P. Painter, Judge, Ohio First District Court of Appeals, 1995-; Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law, 1990-; Judge, Hamilton County Municipal Court, 1982-95; B.A., University of Cincinnati, 1970; J.D., University of Cincinnati College of Law, 1973. The author gratefully acknowledges the editorial assistance of Richard J. Schaen, Esq. 2Am. Sub. S.B. 2; see also Am. Sub. S.B. 269 (amending Senate Bill 2). 3State v. Mushrush, 733 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999); discretionary appeal not allowed, 716 N.E.2d 1168 (1999). 4d. at 255.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most