State v. Brandon
2016 Ohio 227
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Dawaune Brandon was charged in three consolidated matters with multiple drug and related felonies committed between June and September 2014; some offenses occurred while he was released on bond.
- Through a plea agreement he pled guilty to three counts: possession of heroin (two counts in separate cases) and possession of cocaine (one case); other counts were dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced Brandon to consecutive prison terms of 4 years, 2 years, and 12 months (total 7 years), finding consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and to punish, and were not disproportionate; the court also found one offense was committed while awaiting trial.
- The court relied on the presentence investigation (PSI), Brandon’s juvenile delinquency history (including recent juvenile felony adjudications and unsuccessful juvenile sanctions), his commission of offenses while cases were pending, lack of remorse, and questioned the Ohio Risk Assessment Survey’s low-risk score.
- Brandon appealed, arguing the record did not support the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brandon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are supported by the record | Trial court properly made required findings (necessity to protect public / to punish; not disproportionate) based on PSI, juvenile history, offenses committed while awaiting trial, lack of remorse | Record does not support findings: low-risk O.R.A.S. score, first-time adult non-violent offender, juvenile history insufficient to justify consecutive terms | Affirmed: appellate court cannot clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the trial court’s findings; consecutive sentences upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make statutory consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing but need not state reasons)
- Adams v. State, 525 N.E.2d 1361 (Ohio 1988) (a silent record may permit presumption that court considered R.C. 2929.12 factors)
- Bowser v. State, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio App. 2010) (trial court may rely on a broad range of information, including PSI and allegations of uncharged conduct, when sentencing)