Now that it has been more than four years since Senate Bill 2 became effective, this is a good time to analyze the cases to see where courts stand in their interpretations of the guidelines. This article will review the case law and show how different courts have dealt with the legislation. My analysis concentrates on one aspect of the guidelines in particular: the standard of review that appeals courts have used to determine the propriety of sentences. To illustrate my points, I focus on the issue of when judges can impose maximum prison sentences under the guidelines, one of the most frequently litigated issues before our court. After initially analyzing the origins and development of Senate Bill 2, I will show that courts have not used consistent standards of review. This inconsistency, I argue, is especially problematic because it will result in inconsistent sentences for convicted felons, whose sentences will be greatly influenced by the section of the state, or appellate district, where their crimes occurred-just what Senate Bill 2 was designed to avoid.
Mark P. Painter,
Appellate Review under the New Felony Sentencing Guidelines: Where Do We Stand ,
47 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol47/iss4/6