State v. Cameron
2013 Ohio 4397
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Cameron sold under-five-gram cocaine to a confidential informant in Aug 2010 near a juvenile.
- He was arrested in July 2012 with 0.18 grams of heroin on his person.
- In March 2012, Cameron faced three cocaine-traficking counts (two felonies, one in proximity to a juvenile) across case 12CR0204 and a heroin possession count in 12CR0483.
- In Oct 2012, Cameron pled guilty to one 4th-degree cocaine trafficking count and one 5th-degree cocaine trafficking count in 12CR0204, and a 5th-degree heroin possession in 12CR0483; other counts were dismissed.
- The plea included the State’s agreement to remain silent at sentencing; Cameron was sentenced to consecutive maximum terms totaling 3 years.
- The court notified Cameron at plea but failed to notify him at the sentencing hearing about post-release control, prompting a remand for proper notification at re-sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion | State argues sentences warranted given prior drug trafficking history | Cameron contends consecutive max sentences were unsupported and failed to consider rehabilitation | No abuse; consecutive sentences affirmed aside from post-release control issue |
| Whether failure to notify about post-release control requires remedy | State concedes error and requests remand for proper notification | Cameron seeks reversal or de novo re-sentencing | Second error sustained; post-release control portion reversed and remanded for re-sentencing with proper notification |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900 (2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-54) (deference to trial court sentencing discretion; not error absent abuse)
- State v. Parker, 2011-Ohio-1418 (2d Dist.) (distinguishable, not reversible error in Parker scenario)
- State v. Gatewood, 2012-Ohio-202 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2010CA18) (reversed for non-sentencing reasons; supports comparison but not per se reversal for this case)
- State v. Gatewood, 2009-Ohio-5610 (2d Dist.) (remand context for Gatewood I; relevant to sentencing remand issues)
- State v. Blessing, 2013-Ohio-392 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2011CA56) (remand for proper PRC notification after sentencing)
- State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (holding that void PRC term must be set aside when not properly imposed at sentencing)