State v. Bowshier
2016 Ohio 1416
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2005 Bowshier pled guilty to multiple drug- and weapons-related felonies as part of a jointly-recommended 15-year prison sentence that included consecutive terms, fines, and forfeitures.\
- The September 2005 judgment entry imposing that agreed sentence was not appealed.\
- In October 2013 Bowshier (with counsel) moved to correct an "illegal sentence" arguing the trial court failed to make required consecutive-sentence findings; the trial court overruled the motion and Bowshier did not appeal that ruling.\
- In March 2015 Bowshier filed a pro se motion for resentencing raising the same consecutive-sentence argument; the trial court denied it and Bowshier appealed.\
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous issues existed; this court performed an independent review under Penson and affirmed the trial court.\
- The court relied on precedent holding jointly-recommended sentences are protected from appellate review and noted res judicata and timeliness bars to Bowshier’s claims.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to state R.C. 2929.14(C) consecutive-sentence findings for a jointly-recommended sentence to be authorized by law | State argues the agreed sentence is authorized and not appealable when jointly recommended | Bowshier argues the court failed to make statutorily required findings, rendering consecutive sentences unlawful | Court held the claim lacked arguable merit: jointly-recommended sentences are not subject to appellate review and Bowshier’s claim is also barred by res judicata and timeliness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (appellate courts must independently review record when counsel files an Anders brief)
- State v. Porterfield, 829 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2005) (jointly recommended sentences authorized by law and not subject to review)
- State v. Sergent, 38 N.E.3d 898 (Ohio 2015) (Supreme Court accepted certified conflict on whether R.C. 2929.14(C) findings are required for jointly-recommended consecutive sentences)
- State v. Holdcroft, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (Supreme Court declined to find sentences void for failure to comply with certain sentencing statutes)