State v. Blevins
2017 Ohio 4444
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2017Background
- Appellant Barry Blevins pleaded guilty in two Cuyahoga County cases; this appeal concerns CR-15-597731-A where he pled to voluntary manslaughter with a three-year firearm specification.
- At sentencing the court imposed 11 years on the voluntary manslaughter count plus a consecutive 3-year firearm term (total 14 years) and ordered that sentence consecutive to a separate 3-year sentence from CR-14-592088-A.
- The court relied on the PSI, competing factual accounts (state: Blevins returned with a gun and shot the victim in the back; defense: Blevins acted in self‑defense after being beaten and pistol‑whipped), victim-family statements, and Blevins’s extensive criminal history.
- Blevins challenged (1) the imposition of consecutive sentences as not supported by the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and (2) the imposition of the maximum 11‑year term as unsupported by the record.
- The trial court made oral findings at sentencing and incorporated the consecutive-sentence findings into its journal entry; it also stated it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and the PSI when imposing the maximum term.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were imposed without required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | Trial court omitted an explicit finding that consecutive terms were not disproportionate to the danger Blevins poses to the public (only mentioned seriousness) | Trial court’s oral statements and entry show it considered proportionality to both seriousness and danger and made the statutory findings | Court held the findings were adequate; consecutive sentences affirmed |
| Whether the maximum 11‑year term for voluntary manslaughter is unsupported by the record | Court relied impermissibly on the dismissed/more serious potential charge (murder) and on a one‑sided view of plea benefit; failed to consider the possibility of acquittal/self‑defense | Trial court permissibly considered the underlying facts (including facts supporting a murder charge), PSI, victim statements, competing witness accounts, and Blevins’s violent criminal history; sentence within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Court held the maximum sentence is supported by the record and not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate required consecutive-sentence findings on the record but need not recite statutory language verbatim)
- Marcum v. Ohio, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- Sergent v. Ohio, 69 N.E.3d 627 (Ohio 2016) (trial courts have discretion to impose sentences within statutory ranges and are not required to make additional findings for maximum or consecutive terms)
- Foster v. Ohio, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose sentences within statutory range post‑Foster)
- Edmonson v. Ohio, 715 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1999) (trial court must indicate it engaged in statutory analysis when imposing sentence)