State v. Mallette

In State v. Mallette, Cuyahoga App. No. 87984, 2007 Ohio 715, PP39-48, the Court held as follows: "Mallette had notice that the sentencing range was the same at the time he committed the offenses as when he was sentenced. Foster did not judicially increase the range of his sentence, nor did it retroactively apply a new statutory maximum to an earlier committed crime, nor did it create the possibility of consecutive sentences where none existed. As a result, we conclude that the remedial holding of Foster does not violate Mallette's due process rights or the ex post facto principles contained therein." Id., followed by State v. Jones, Cuyahoga App. No. 88134, 2007 Ohio 1301, P56; State v. Brito, Cuyahoga App. No. 88223, 2007 Ohio 1311, P11.