State v. Brooks
2013 Ohio 2169
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Brooks was charged in two Summit County cases: CR-2011-11-3172 for passing bad checks and CR-2011-09-2446 for forgery, both fifth-degree felonies.
- He pleaded guilty on February 27, 2012, to the two offenses and was sentenced on February 28, 2012 to a total of two years in prison.
- Brooks separately appealed; the appeals were consolidated into this proceeding, with three assignments of error on review.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences and noted Brooks’ criminal history and conduct while awaiting sentencing as bases for severity.
- On appeal, the court addressed whether the sentence complied with sentencing statutes and whether the findings for consecutive terms were properly made and memorialized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the maximum consecutive sentences complied with the sentencing statutes | Brooks contends the max sentences violated R.C. 2929.14, 2929.11, 2929.12. | Brooks argues the court failed to properly apply statutory factors and the two-year totals were inappropriate. | First assignment overruled; sentences within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the trial court properly made findings for consecutive sentences under HB 86 | Brooks asserts the court failed to make required factual findings on record to support consecutive terms. | Brooks contends no proper on-record findings were made to justify consecutives under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). | Second assignment sustained; absence of on-record findings requires resentencing. |
| Whether Brooks received ineffective assistance of counsel | Brooks claims counsel misrepresented a plea bargain and failed to present mitigating evidence. | State argues no deficient performance or prejudice shown; record does not establish a plea bargain or ineffective mitigation failure. | Third assignment overruled; no prejudice shown; ineffective assistance not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (no longer required to make findings for maximum sentences but must consider R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2006) (requires review of sentencing within statutory framework)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (establishes two-step method for reviewing felony sentences)
- State v. Just, 2012-Ohio-4094 (Ohio 2012) (discusses post-Foster changes to HB 86 and findings for consecutive sentences)