State v. Arnold
2012 Ohio 5786
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Arnold was indicted for possession of crack cocaine between five and ten grams, a third‑degree felony under pre‑HB86 law, and pled guilty.
- In January 2012, Arnold was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with six months’ license suspension; the judgment labeled the offense as a fourth‑degree felony under R.C. 2925.11(A).
- HB 86, signed June 29, 2011 and effective September 30, 2011, eliminated the crack/powder cocaine distinction and generally created penalties between the prior levels; it also amended R.C. 2925.11(C)(4) to classify 5–10 grams of cocaine as a fourth‑degree felony.
- HB 86 applies to offenses committed on or after its effective date and to defendants to whom R.C. 1.58(B) applies, which governs reduced penalties when statutes are amended.
- The State appeals, arguing Arnold is entitled to the lesser penalty but not to reclassification of his offense; the trial court’s judgment treated the offense as a fourth‑degree felony, which the State contests.
- The court ultimately held that Arnold’s sentence correctly reflects a fourth‑degree felony under HB 86 and 1.58(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HB 86 and R.C. 1.58(B) require reducing Arnold’s offense to a fourth‑degree felony. | State contends Arnold gets a lesser penalty but not reclassification. | Arnold should receive the reduced penalty and reclassification to reflect the amended statute. | Yes; the offense is reduced to a fourth‑degree felony under HB 86 and 1.58(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Limoli, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-924, 2012-Ohio-4502 (2012) (HB86 amendments apply to penalties and reclassification where appropriate)
- Gillespie, 2012-Ohio-3485, 975 N.E.2d 492 (5th Dist. 2012) (supports applying 1.58(B) to reduce penalty and reclassify offense accordingly)
- Steinfurth, 2012-Ohio-3257 (8th Dist. 2012) (pre‑sentence amendment impact on classification vs. penalty)
- Coffman, 16 Ohio App.3d 200, 475 N.E.2d 139 (1984) (application of 1.58 in pre/post amendment sentencing)
- Collier, 22 Ohio App.3d 25, 488 N.E.2d 887 (1984) (early authority on 1.58 application to reduced penalties)
- Burton, 11 Ohio App.3d 261, 464 N.E.2d 186 (1983) (principles for applying amended penalties)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2012 (2012) (post‑amendment penalties should not yield disparate sentences)