State v. Campbell, 2016 Ohio 7613

Background

Glen Campbell pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of murder, and two counts of felonious assault; several counts carried repeat violent-offender specifications.
The trial court merged some counts for sentencing and imposed: life without parole for aggravated murder (Count 1), 11 years for aggravated burglary (Count 3), and a consecutive 10-year term for the repeat violent-offender specification; all three sentences were ordered consecutive.
Campbell appealed, raising four challenges: (1) the 10-year specification term was unauthorized; (2) it was irrational to impose consecutive sentences given the life-without-parole term; (3) the court failed to balance R.C. 2929.12 aggravating/mitigating factors before imposing life without parole; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to preserve sentencing objections.
The court analyzed the repeat-specification statute R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a), emphasizing that specifications attach to particular offenses and are sentenced separately from other counts.
The court treated the consecutive-sentence challenge as moot because the life-without-parole term renders actual service of the consecutive term academic, and held that Porterfield and R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) bar appellate review of sentencing for aggravated murder under R.C. 2929.02–.06.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Campbell's Argument	Held
Validity of 10-year repeat violent-offender specification term	Specification applies to the specific underlying felony; court may impose the additional term where statute allows	The additional 10-year term is unauthorized because Campbell already received life without parole on another count, making the spec term pointless	Affirmed: Spec attached to burglary, not murder; statute permits additional term because burglary sentence was not life without parole
Consecution of sentences (consecutive service)	Consecutive terms are permitted; review is moot where life without parole makes consecutive term academic	It was irrational to order consecutive terms to "protect the public" when life without parole eliminates future risk	Moot: consecutive-order challenge is academic because life without parole precludes serving the consecutive term
Failure to balance R.C. 2929.12 factors before imposing life without parole	Sentencing for aggravated murder pursuant to R.C. 2929.02–.06 is not reviewable on appeal under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3)	Trial court erred by not weighing statutory aggravating/mitigating factors before imposing life without parole	Unreviewable on appeal: Porterfield controls; R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) bars appellate review of such aggravated-murder sentences
Ineffective assistance for failure to object at sentencing	Not reached because appellate rulings did not depend on forfeiture; issues resolved on other grounds or as moot	Counsel was ineffective for not preserving sentencing objections, enabling forfeiture	Moot/Not addressed: court did not dispose of appeal on forfeiture grounds, so ineffective-assistance claim not reached

Key Cases Cited

State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (sentences are sanctions for each separate offense)
State v. Nagel, 84 Ohio St.3d 280 (1999) (specifications are ancillary to the underlying charge)
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005) (aggravated-murder sentences under R.C. 2929.02–.06 are not reviewable on appeal under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (R.C. 2953.08 defines appellate review scope and standards for felony sentences)
State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38 (1994) (discusses mootness of consecutive terms when a death sentence is imposed)
State v. Scott, 101 Ohio St.3d 31 (2004) (similar treatment of consecutive term review when primary sentence renders consecutive term academic)
State v. Lynch, 98 Ohio St.3d 514 (2003) (same principle regarding reviewability when the primary punishment makes consecutive terms academic)