State v. Cencebaugh
2018 Ohio 2216
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Bryant Cencebaugh was indicted for aggravated possession of fentanyl (fifth-degree felony) after hospital security found a syringe with blood and a fentanyl capsule in a restroom; he later was found overdosed elsewhere the same day.
- Cencebaugh moved to dismiss under Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute, claiming he sought medical help at the hospital; the State disputed that anyone sought medical assistance and noted Cencebaugh denied knowledge of the items.
- The trial court denied the Good Samaritan-based motion, finding Cencebaugh was not a “qualified individual” because he did not seek medical treatment or ask for assistance while at the hospital.
- Cencebaugh pleaded no contest, failed to appear at a hearing (resulting in an arrest warrant), and was ultimately sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment and a three-year suspension of his driver’s license.
- On appeal, Cencebaugh challenged the 11-month sentence as an abuse of discretion, arguing his extensive drug-history warranted community-based sanctions and treatment rather than prison.
- The trial court relied on the PSI showing extensive prior convictions (13th felony), repeated failures on community control, and prior unsuccessful treatment placements in imposing a within-range sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is reviewable under an abuse-of-discretion standard or R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard | State: R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) applies; appellate review requires clear-and-convincing showing the record does not support the sentence or that it is contrary to law | Cencebaugh framed his complaint as an abuse of discretion in imposing 11 months | Court: R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs; abuse-of-discretion is wrong standard |
| Whether the 11-month prison sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record | State: Sentence is within statutory range and record (PSI) supports the court’s decision given recidivism and prior failures on supervision | Cencebaugh: Given his drug addiction, community sanctions and treatment would be more appropriate; shock incarceration/intensive programs should not have been rejected | Court: Sentence is within statutory range, not contrary to law, and the record supports it (PSI shows extensive prior felonies and poor compliance) |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Good Samaritan dismissal (related procedural history) | State: No medical assistance was sought and defendant denied drug use/paraphernalia | Cencebaugh: Claimed he sought treatment/was a qualified individual under Good Samaritan law | Trial court previously denied the motion: defendant not a qualified individual because he did not request medical assistance while at hospital |
| Whether the record requires imposition of community-based sanctions or specific findings to justify prison | State: Record need only show support under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) | Cencebaugh: argued community sanctions appropriate given addiction issues | Court: Given defendant’s criminal history and prior failures on supervision, community control was not appropriate; sentencing statement that it considered statutory factors was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (articulates R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. McGowan, 147 Ohio St.3d 166 (Ohio 2016) (references Marcum’s application of clear-and-convincing standard)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure for counsel to withdraw when appellate arguments are frivolous)