State v. Catlett
2016 Ohio 7260
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Robert D. Catlett III was indicted for two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and one count of failure to stop after an accident arising from a May 31, 2015 collision that killed a motorcyclist; indictment also alleged Catlett fled the scene.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, Catlett pled guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide (second-degree felony) and one count of failure to stop after an accident (third-degree felony); the second aggravated-vehicular-homicide count was dismissed.
- The trial court advised Catlett of possible sentences, ordered a presentence investigation, and received victim-impact statements and allocution at sentencing.
- At sentencing the court imposed the maximum terms (8 years and 36 months) and ordered them to run consecutively, citing intoxication at the time of the crash, flight to Florida, prior DUI conviction, and the victim impact statements.
- Catlett appealed, challenging the imposition of maximum and consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maximum terms were proper | State argued court followed R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, considered PSI and victim statements, and properly exercised discretion to impose maximum terms | Catlett argued the maximum sentences were unsupported by the record and contrary to law | Court held appellant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support maximum sentences; affirmed |
| Whether consecutive sentences were proper | State argued court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (necessity, proportionality, course-of-conduct/serious harm) | Catlett argued consecutive terms were improper or unsupported by statutory findings | Court found the trial court made the necessary statutory findings and consecutive sentences were supported; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines "clear and convincing evidence")
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range and are not required to make additional findings to impose maximum sentence)