In Hurst u. Florida, _ U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), this Court: (a) overruled
(1989), (b) invalidated Florida's capital punishment statute, and (c) held that all facts
necessary to impose a sentence of death must be based on a jury's verdict, not a
judge's fact finding. Hurst, 136 S. Ct. at 624.

Under Ohio's capital punishment statute, "[a]ll the power to impose the
punishment of death resides in the trial court which oversees the mitigation or
penalty phase of the trial" and renders specific factual findings necessary to impose
the death penalty. State v. Rogers, 28 Ohio St.3d 427, 429, 505 N.E.2d 52, 55 (1986).
The Supreme Court of Ohio, citing Spaziano, has repeatedly held that Ohio's death
penalty statutory scheme procedure does not violate the Sixth or Eighth
Amendments.

Lawrence Landrum was sentenced under this judge-sentencing scheme where
a jury's death verdict is merely a recommendation. The judge alone makes findings
essential to the death penalty and decides whether to sentence a defendant to life or
death.

Mr. Landrum, in his motion for a new mitigation trial, moved the trial court to
vacate his death sentence in accordance with Hurst. The state court denied his
motion, the state court of appeals affirmed that decision, albeit for different
reasoning, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction to review the court of appeals' decision.

Given that this Court in Hurst explicitly overruled Spaziano, and the Supreme
Court of Ohio repeatedly relied on Spaziano, in upholding Ohio's death scheme in
which the trial judge independently makes the ultimate decision as to whether the
aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors and the defendant should
be sentenced to death, the following question is presented:

Is Ohio's death penalty scheme unconstitutional under
Hurst u. Florida?

Is Ohio's death penalty scheme unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida?