2020 Ohio 4652
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Antoine T. Briggs pled guilty (July 2, 2018) to aggravated vehicular homicide, possession of cocaine, and burglary under three Franklin County cases; a separate probation-revocation was also before the court.
- The trial court held a combined sentencing and revocation hearing on August 30, 2018; victim's family and Briggs made allocution/mitigation statements.
- The judge delivered a lengthy, highly critical statement about Briggs, announced maximum and consecutive sentences for the three plea cases (aggregate 15 years), and declared Briggs an "obstreperous defendant."
- Before completing the sentencing pronouncement (including post-release control and license suspension), the judge ordered Briggs removed from the courtroom without prior warning; the court finished imposing those components in his absence.
- On appeal Briggs raised three assignments of error: (1) consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were inadequate, (2) removal from the courtroom at sentencing violated Crim.R. 43 and Allen, and (3) failure to personally inform him of post-release control requiring R.C. 2929.191 compliance.
- The Tenth District sustained assignment two (removal without warning was an abuse of discretion), reversed and remanded for resentencing; it deemed the other assignments moot. A concurring opinion argued the consecutive-sentence issue warranted resolution (would find Bonnell/Beasley error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) / Bonnell | State: judgment entries tracked statutory language; judge's statements show need for consecutive terms | Briggs: transcript lacks proportionality finding and required consideration for each offense | Majority: remand on presence issue, did not decide; concurring judge: trial court failed to make required findings and would reverse on this ground |
| Whether removing defendant from courtroom before completion of sentencing violated right to be present (Crim.R. 43/Allen) | State: removal was justified by defendant's obstreperous behavior (courtroom security) | Briggs: no warning was given; transcript shows no disruptive conduct captured; removal before imposition of sentence components violated right to be present | Held: removal without warning was an abuse of discretion; assignment of error sustained; sentences reversed and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether defendant was personally informed of post-release control (Fischer/Harris) | State: post-release control and license suspension properly imposed as part of sentence | Briggs: he was not present when post-release control and lifetime suspension were imposed; not personally informed | Held: rendered moot by remand for resentencing (court did not decide on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (trial court must properly impose and inform defendant of post-release control)
- State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012) (failure to include mandatory driver's-license suspension as part of sentence renders that part void)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may lose right to be present after judicial warning for disruptive conduct)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing; no requirement to use talismanic language but the required findings must appear)
- State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (trial court's general statements of outrage do not substitute for the required proportionality analysis for consecutive sentences)