midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
2018 Ohio 4290
Ohio Ct. App.
2018
Read the full case

Background

  • Atkinson was indicted on multiple counts including felonious assault (2nd degree), domestic violence (4th degree), two counts of assault on a peace officer (4th degree), and resisting arrest (misdemeanor); he pleaded guilty to felonious assault, domestic violence, and resisting arrest; two assault counts were dismissed.
  • PSI and victim/defense letters were prepared; facts showed Atkinson assaulted the mother of his children during Halloween, causing injuries requiring multiple surgeries; he admitted the assault but claimed self-defense.
  • The trial court merged the domestic-violence count into the felonious-assault count and elected to sentence on the felonious assault.
  • Atkinson received an aggregate sentence of eight years (maximum for the 2nd-degree felony) plus concurrent six months on the misdemeanor; 12 days credit was awarded.
  • Atkinson appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a maximum sentence.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a maximum sentence State: sentence is within statutory range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors Atkinson: maximum term is an abuse of discretion given mitigating circumstances Affirmed: record supports consideration of sentencing statutes and sentence is not contrary to law

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review standard for felony sentences; vacatur only if record clearly and convincingly fails to support sentence or sentence is contrary to law)
  • State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (appellate courts may review sentences for consistency with law and record)
  • State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (post-Foster sentencing review framework and deference to trial court discretion)
  • State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (severed certain mandatory judicial-fact-finding provisions, restoring trial court discretion within statutory range)
  • State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (post-Foster sentencing principles)
  • State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (interpretation of sentencing statutes after Foster)
  • Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Atkinson
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 22, 2018
Citations: 2018 Ohio 4290; CT2018-0015
Docket Number: CT2018-0015
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In