State v. Amey
2016 Ohio 1121
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Danny Amey pleaded guilty in two consolidated Cuyahoga County cases: two counts of attempted domestic violence (felonies reduced to fifth-degree) and one count of attempted receiving stolen property (amended to remove firearm reference).
- Sentencing court obtained a presentence report and held a joint sentencing hearing on April 9, 2015.
- At sentencing the court revoked a prior postrelease-control sanction (imposing one year) and then imposed consecutive terms that produced a 24-month aggregate (two consecutive 12-month terms across the cases), plus the one-year term for the postrelease-control violation.
- The court explained Amey’s extensive criminal history (multiple convictions including violent offenses, repeated community-control violations, failure to complete domestic-violence treatment) and noted the offenses were committed while Amey was on postrelease control and probation.
- Amey appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Amey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the required findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Trial court engaged in the correct analysis, articulated reasons at hearing, and incorporated findings into journal entries | Court failed to make the specific statutory findings (argues wording was insufficient, e.g., only said “would not be disproportionate”) | Court affirmed: statements and journal entries show the court considered statutory criteria and made the required findings |
| Whether the proportionality requirement was satisfied (did court address "not disproportionate to seriousness and danger") | Court’s remarks and record demonstrate consideration of proportionality relative to seriousness and danger | Court claims record lacks explicit, word-for-word proportionality language | Court held that a word-for-word recitation is not required; the context shows a distinct proportionality finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must both make statutory findings on record and incorporate them into sentencing entry; word‑for‑word recitation not required)
- State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391 (2001) (consecutive sentence statute requires separate and distinct findings in addition to purposes of sentencing)
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (court must note it engaged in analysis and specify which statutory bases justify consecutive terms)