State v. Bailey
2014 Ohio 5129
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Bobby A. Bailey pled guilty to multiple offenses arising from thefts and burglaries committed to support a heroin habit; several victims included an elderly person and a relative of his girlfriend.
- Indictment listed nine counts; Bailey pleaded guilty to six counts (including complicity to burglary, complicity to theft from an elderly person, tampering with evidence, and breaking and entering); three counts were dismissed as part of the plea.
- Presentence investigation (PSI) documented an extensive drug history, prior convictions, admissions of uncharged misconduct, and facts aggravating seriousness (victim age, relationship facilitating offense).
- At sentencing the trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 48 months (consecutive terms) plus 90 days concurrent, finding consecutive terms necessary to protect the public and not disproportionate to the conduct.
- Bailey appealed arguing (1) consecutive sentences exceeded statutory maximum for his most serious offense, (2) sentencing relied on improper prosecutorial statements and community control should have been imposed, (3) ineffective assistance for failure to object at sentencing, and (4) consecutive sentences improperly burden state resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were unlawful because aggregate exceeded max for most serious offense | State: trial court complied with statutes; sentence within statutory ranges | Bailey: aggregate exceeded the maximum allowed for his most serious offense and thus was contrary to law | Court: sentences within statutory ranges; consecutive findings supported by record — overruled Bailey |
| Whether sentencing relied on improper prosecutorial remarks and should have imposed community control | State: prosecutor’s remarks and amended charges were proper and sentencing may consider plea negotiations and PSI content | Bailey: prosecutor’s statements (e.g., charge reduction, references to uncharged acts, victim descriptions) were improper and warranted different sentence | Court: statements were permissible/PSI-contained; no impropriety shown — overruled Bailey |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s remarks at sentencing | State: counsel’s performance fell within reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown | Bailey: counsel should have objected and prejudice resulted | Court: Bailey failed Strickland test; no deficiency or prejudice shown — claim denied |
| Whether consecutive sentences improperly burden state resources under R.C. 2929.11 | State: resource concerns do not override seriousness and recidivism findings; court considered statutory factors | Bailey: consecutive terms unnecessarily burden state/local resources | Court: sentencing court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; burden argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (establishes two-step appellate review framework for felony sentences)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the entry; reasons not required)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 544 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 1989) (sentencing courts may consider allegations and uncharged conduct contained in PSI)