State v. Abrams
2017 Ohio 8536
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey Abrams pleaded guilty to multiple theft-related offenses (four 5th-degree felonies and three 1st-degree misdemeanors) arising from coordinated fraudulent returns, stolen credit cards, and theft from an elderly victim; other charges were dismissed as part of a plea deal.
- PSI revealed a lengthy criminal history including prior prison terms and substance‑abuse treatment failures; appellant acted as a getaway driver and used a vehicle with a stolen plate.
- At sentencing the court rejected community control, imposed concurrent 180‑day jail terms on the misdemeanors and consecutive 11‑month prison terms on each of the four 5th‑degree felonies, for an aggregate 44‑month sentence, with 293 days credit and $1,644.92 restitution.
- Abrams appealed, arguing (1) sentencing errors (failure to follow R.C. sentencing principles, improper consecutive terms, missing advisements on prison drug-testing/DNA/right to appeal, and failure to consider ability to pay restitution) and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not preserving objections.
- The trial court explained its consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) factors at the hearing and in the entry, noting prior prison, multiple victims, ongoing recidivism, and the victims’ emotional/financial harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Abrams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 11‑month terms for each 5th‑degree felony violated sentencing statutes/principles | Sentence is lawful; court followed R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and stayed within statutory range | Sentences are excessive; court failed to properly weigh mitigation (addiction, lack of intent to harm) | Affirmed — record supports consideration of statutory factors and sentences are within statutory range; not contrary to law |
| Whether consecutive sentences were lawful under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Consecutive terms were necessary given multiple victims, prior history, and harm | Consecutive sentences were improper because court did not properly make required findings | Affirmed — court made the statutory findings at hearing and in entry; record supports them |
| Whether failure to give specific advisements (drug testing in prison, DNA, right to appeal) invalidates sentence | Any omission was harmless; no prejudice shown | Court erred by not advising defendant, requiring reversal | Affirmed — omissions deemed harmless; appellant suffered no prejudice and appealed timely |
| Whether restitution order violated R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) and whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting | Court considered PSI and ability to pay; restitution appropriate | Court failed to consider present/future ability to pay; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Affirmed — record contains evidence showing consideration of ability to pay; plain‑error not shown; ineffective‑assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make/contemporaneously record consecutive‑sentence findings)
- State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 2016) (appellate modification standard for felony sentences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 1999) (ineffective‑assistance framework and application)