2013 Ohio 1414
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant-appellant Jeffrey D. Allen pled guilty to two counts of aggravated possession of drugs and one count of possession of marijuana (misdemeanor) after a traffic stop.
- Trial court sentenced Allen on March 21, 2011 to four years total (two years on the second-degree felony and two years on the third-degree felony) to be served consecutively.
- In October 2012 Allen, pro se, moved to reduce or modify the sentence arguing it should run concurrent with a federal term.
- The trial court denied the motion in a December 19, 2012 judgment entry.
- Allen appeals the denial, asserting the sentence should have been concurrent with a future federal sentence and that the court erred in not so directing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not specifying concurrent execution with a future federal term. | Allen contends the sentence should run concurrently with the forthcoming federal prison term. | Allen argues the court’s silence on concurrency constitutes error and violates discretion to impose concurrency. | Not error; court concurrent with future sentence not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 18 Ohio St.3d 340 (Ohio Supreme Court 1984) (concurrency discretion cannot be used to bind future sentences)
- Brook Park v. Necak, 30 Ohio App.3d 118 (Ohio App. 1986) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a valid sentence after imprisonment begins)
- State v. Garretson, 140 Ohio App.3d 554 (Ohio App. 2000) (execution of sentence timing and finality questions)
- Columbus v. Messer, 7 Ohio App.3d 266 (Ohio App. 1982) (timing of execution and finality of sentence)
- State v. Evans, 161 Ohio App.3d 24 (Ohio App. 2005) (trial court may modify before execution of sentence; post-execution cannot)
- State v. Carr, 2006-Ohio-3073 (Ohio App. 2006) (double jeopardy and modification limitations after sentencing)
- Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163 (U.S. Supreme Court 1873) (constitutional limits on altering a sentence)
- United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court 1931) (historic Federal sentencing constraints)