In State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006 Ohio 856, 845 N.E.2d 470, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that certain parts of the Ohio sentencing system were unconstitutional. Id. at paragraph one, three, and five of the syllabus. The Supreme Court "severed" the unconstitutional parts and left the remaining parts of the sentencing system intact. Id. at P97. It held that trial courts now "have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences." Id. at paragraph seven of the syllabus. The Ohio Supreme Court found that Ohio's sentencing structure was unconstitutional to the extent that it required judicial fact-finding. Id., at paragraphs one through seven of the syllabus. In constructing a remedy, the Court excised the portions of the statute it found to offend the Sixth Amendment and thereby granted full discretion to trial court judges to sentence defendants within the bounds prescribed by statute. See Id. The Supreme Court of Ohio severed portions of Ohio's felony sentencing law after finding them unconstitutional. The Court held that "trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences." Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006 Ohio 856, 845 N.E.2d 470, at paragraph seven of the syllabus. Further, the Court stated that "our remedy does not rewrite the statute, but leaves courts with full discretion to impose a prison term within the basic ranges of R.C. 2929.14(A) based upon a jury verdict or admission of the defendant without the mandated judicial findings of fact that Blakely prohibits." Id. at P102. Additionally, the Court held that "courts shall consider those portions of the sentencing code that are unaffected by today's decision and impose any sentence within the appropriate felony range." Id. at P105. The Ohio Supreme Court declared unconstitutional those portions of the felony sentencing statutes that required judicial fact-finding before the trial court could impose a prison sentence. 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006 Ohio 856, at P100, 845 N.E.2d 470. Subsequently, the Supreme Court excised those provisions that related to judicial fact-finding from the sentencing statutes, specifically including R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and R.C. 2929.41(A). Id. at P97. As a result of the excision of those unconstitutional provisions, the Court ultimately held that, "trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences." Id. at paragraph seven of the syllabus.