State v. Boyd
2014 Ohio 2640
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Brian Boyd pleaded guilty in May 2010 to multiple drug-trafficking offenses (one fourth-degree, two second-degree) and in a separate case to felonious assault (second-degree) and weapons while under disability (third-degree).
- In September 2010 the trial court imposed an aggregate six-year prison term: three sentences (1, 3, and 2 years) to run consecutively and two sentences in the assault/weapons case to run concurrently.
- The trial court failed to advise Boyd of his appellate rights at the original sentencing; Boyd later sought postconviction relief and the state did not oppose.
- In August 2013 the trial court granted resentencing, imposed the same aggregate six-year sentence, informed Boyd of his appellate rights, and appointed appellate counsel.
- Boyd appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (as amended by H.B. 86) to support consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required by H.B. 86 | The state: because Boyd was resentenced in 2013 (after H.B. 86), the court was required to apply H.B. 86 and make the statutory findings; the trial court did so through its statements | Boyd: trial court failed to make the required consecutive-sentence findings (as amended by H.B. 86) when resentencing him | The court affirmed: the trial court’s statements show it engaged in the required analysis and made the necessary findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive sentences upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (explaining pre-H.B. 86 sentencing discretion and that trial courts previously were not required to make findings for consecutive or maximum sentences)