State v. Amos (Slip Opinion)
140 Ohio St. 3d 238
| Ohio | 2014Background
- LaShawn Amos and Christopher Richmond pleaded guilty to fifth-degree felonies while jailed; each was immediately sentenced to 30 days (credited as time served), a fine, and release without a presentence investigation (PSI).
- In Amos the prosecutor objected to the sentence; in Richmond the state did not object at sentencing but appealed afterward.
- The Eighth District issued conflicting panels: one affirmed (Amos) holding no PSI required absent request; the other reversed (Richmond) holding PSI mandatory before any felony community-control sanction.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted both appeals, consolidated them, and addressed whether R.C. 2951.03(A)(1) and Crim.R. 32.2 require a trial court to order and consider a PSI before imposing any community-control sanction on a felony offender.
- The lead opinion concluded the statutory rule and criminal rule unambiguously require a PSI before community control in felony cases and reversed Amos but affirmed Richmond; separate concurring and dissenting opinions urged a plain-error or en banc approach and legislative reform.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must order and review a written presentence investigation before imposing one or more community-control sanctions on a felony offender | State: R.C. 2951.03(A)(1) and Crim.R. 32.2 mandate a PSI prior to any community control for felonies | Defendants: Requiring PSI in every nonprison felony case is unnecessary; absent objection reversal should require plain error showing | Held: Yes. The court held a PSI is required before imposing community-control sanctions in felony cases; sentences imposed without a PSI are contrary to law and require remand for PSI review. |
| Whether failure to obtain a PSI is automatically reversible or subject to plain-error analysis | State: Procedural requirement; failure renders sentence contrary to law | Defendants: Where no party objects, appellate relief should require plain-error (outcome-determinative) showing | Held: Lead opinion treated omission as contrary to law requiring reversal/remand; concurring opinion argued plain-error standard should apply. |
| Whether "time-served" jail terms can constitute community-control sanctions | State (in Richmond): "Time served" may not satisfy requirement of supervision under R.C. 2929.15(A)(2)(a) | Defendants: Short jail term credited as time served is an authorized community residential sanction under R.C. 2929.16(A) | Held: The opinion recognizes short jail terms may be community-control sanctions but still requires PSI before imposing them. |
| Proper role of appellate courts when intradistrict panels conflict | State: asked for en banc review at appellate level first | Defendants/Justice O'Donnell: Supreme Court should remand to Eighth District for en banc resolution before deciding merits | Held: Supreme Court proceeded to resolve the conflict on the merits and criticized the Eighth District for not convening en banc. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (Ohio 2000) (describing Senate Bill 2 sentencing reform aims)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (severance of statutory sentencing provisions post-Apprendi/Blakely)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (constitutional limits on judge-found facts increasing sentences)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (famously applied Apprendi principles to sentencing guidelines)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (post-Foster legislative developments affecting sentencing discretion)
- State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (Ohio 2003) (statutes must be read as a whole in felony sentencing)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (plain-error review limits at sentencing)