State v. Alexander
2012 Ohio 3349
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Alexander pleaded guilty to ten theft-from-elderly/disabled counts (B-1103448) and one Medicaid-fraud count (B-1104473).
- She used her position as group-home manager to steal victims’ retirement and disability payments.
- Victims were elderly/disabled, dependent on Alexander for care and finances.
- The trial court imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 19.5 years after HB 86 amendments.
- Courts recorded sentencing findings and journal entries; appellants challenged consecutive sentences and statutory considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences proper under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)? | Alexander argues improper findings for consecutives. | Alexander contends findings were lacking or flawed. | Yes, findings comply and consecutive sentences are proper. |
| Court considered 2929.12 seriousness/recidivism factors? | Alexander asserts factors were not properly applied. | Alexander contends the record shows consideration. | Yes, court considered seriousness and recidivism factors. |
| Sentence within statutory range and not contrary to law? | Alexander claims sentences exceeded statutory limits. | Alexander concedes ranges were within limits; challenge is on consecutive nature. | Yes, sentences within lawful ranges and not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step review for felony sentences; first lawfulness, then discretion)
- State v. Love, 194 Ohio App.3d 16 (2011-Ohio-2224) (existence of Kalish framework in reviewing sentences; consideration rather than strict articulation)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000-Ohio-?) (R.C. 2929.12 requires only consideration of factors, not specific language)