State v. Ayers
2014 Ohio 276
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Tyrece L. Ayers pleaded guilty to five counts of second‑degree robbery (Counts 2, 8, 10, 12, 14) from a multi‑count indictment; remaining counts were nolled.
- Ayers was already convicted in a separate case of murder with a firearm specification and was serving that sentence (affirmed on appeal to this court).
- At sentencing for the robberies the trial court imposed 3 years on each count, to run consecutively, for 15 years, and ordered the 15 years to run consecutive to the existing murder sentence, producing a total of 36 years before parole eligibility.
- Ayers did not object to the consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing; the appeal is reviewed for plain error.
- The trial court’s written entry stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; the transcript reflects the court’s oral comments but does not recite the specific statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive terms.
- The Tenth District held the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and therefore reversed in part and remanded for resentencing (affirming as to consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: apply plain‑error review; no reversible error shown | Ayers: court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before ordering consecutive terms | Court: trial court did not make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; sentence contrary to law as to consecutive terms and remand for resentencing |
| Whether trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 | State: trial court’s entry and record show consideration of these statutes | Ayers: argued trial court didn’t reference specific R.C. 2929.12 factors | Court: written entry and precedent suffice to show consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; no reversible error on those statutes |
| Whether plain‑error standard applies given no contemporaneous objection | State: plain error applies and not shown | Ayers: error in sentencing nevertheless plain because sentence contrary to law | Court: applied plain‑error framework but found statutory noncompliance makes sentence contrary to law warranting reversal for R.C. 2929.14(C) defect |
| Remedy for statutory deficiency | State: urged affirmance under plain error/no manifest injustice | Ayers: requested reversal/remand for resentencing | Court: affirmed as to compliance with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, reversed as to R.C. 2929.14(C) and remanded for resentencing consistent with law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (explains plain‑error standard and cautionary application under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245 (2001) (discusses plain‑error doctrine in criminal appeals)
- State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (1997) (addresses plain‑error standards and requirements)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (sets forth factors for noticing plain error to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (describes two‑step review of felony sentences — legality and abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)