State v. Belew (Slip Opinion)
140 Ohio St. 3d 221
Ohio2014Background
- Defendant Jeffery Belew, an Iraq veteran diagnosed with PTSD, fired multiple shots at police responding to a domestic disturbance; he was wounded and arrested.
- Belew pled guilty after an unsuccessful NGRI defense and was sentenced to an aggregate 27-year prison term (two consecutive 10-year terms for felonious assault plus concurrent 7-year firearm terms to be served consecutively).
- Psychological evaluations (one diagnosing PTSD and alcohol dependence; another noting possible malingering/personality disorder) and a presentence report were admitted at sentencing.
- Belew appealed, claiming the trial court failed to properly consider PTSD as a mitigating factor and that the sentence was an abuse of discretion; the Sixth District affirmed.
- This court accepted discretionary review but the lead opinion dismissed the cause as improvidently accepted; Justices Lanzinger and O’Neill dissented, arguing the court should decide how PTSD must be considered and clarify appellate review standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PTSD tied to military service must be considered as mitigating at sentencing | Belew: sentencing court failed to give adequate mitigating weight to service-related PTSD and alcoholism tied to PTSD | State: trial court did consider PTSD and properly weighed it against seriousness and danger to community | No statewide ruling — cause dismissed; dissenters would find the record shows PTSD must be considered and remand or affirm depending on view (majority did not decide) |
| Proper appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences involving consecutive terms | Belew: seeks review that might reweigh factors if mitigating evidence was improperly considered | State: emphasizes deference to trial court’s weighing if statutory findings are supported by the record | No definitive holding by majority; dissenters discussed that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) displaces pure abuse-of-discretion review in favor of record support/contrary-to-law standard |
| Whether trial court made required statutory findings for consecutive sentences | Belew: challenges sufficiency of the trial court’s consideration/weight of mitigating evidence when imposing consecutive terms | State: argues trial court expressly made and recorded required findings and balanced statutory factors | Majority did not resolve; dissenters concluded the record supports the trial court’s findings and would affirm (Lanzinger) or remand for resentencing to properly consider PTSD (O’Neill) |
| Application of newly enacted statutory provision recognizing military-service-related conditions (R.C. 2929.12(F)) to this case | Belew: case exemplifies need to give effect to statute requiring consideration of service-related conditions as mitigating | State: notes the court considered service history and psychological reports; sentencing judge retained discretion to weigh mitigation | Majority did not rule; dissenters noted the statute (enacted after sentencing) underscores importance of considering service-connected conditions and urged clearer guidance or remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (addressing constitutionality of portions of Ohio's sentencing statutes and prompting changes in sentencing review)
- State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (articulating a two-step appellate review approach post-Foster)
- State v. Noling, 781 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio 2002) (explaining that the weight assigned to mitigating factors is within the sentencing court's discretion)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. 2009) (upholding a trial judge’s authority to make findings supporting consecutive sentences)
(Note: the lead opinion dismissed the case as improvidently accepted; the court did not issue a majority ruling on the substantive sentencing questions; two dissenting justices would have decided or remanded.)