Did Hurst v. Florida render Ohio's death penalty scheme unconstitutional?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Hurst v. Florida, _ U.S. _, 1386 S. Ct. 616 (2016), this Court: (a) overruled Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 460-65 (1984) and Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638 (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 (1986). The Supreme Court of Ohio, citing Spaziano, has repeatedly held that Ohio’s death penalty statutory scheme does not violate the Sixth or Eighth Amendments. Austin Myers was sentenced pursuant to this judge-sentencing scheme. The jury’s verdict was merely a recommendation. The judge alone made the findings necessary to sentence Myers to death. Because Hurst explicitly overruled Spaziano, and held that all facts necessary to impose a death sentence must be found in accordance with the right to trial by jury, the following question is presented: Did Hurst v. Florida render Ohio’s death penalty scheme unconstitutional? ii