2021 Ohio 2180
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Matthew Claar pled guilty (Nov. 20, 2017) to attempted felonious assault (third degree) and tampering with evidence (third degree) and was placed on community control.
- Community control was revoked (July 19, 2019) and the trial court sentenced Claar to consecutive 36-month prison terms on each felony.
- This court reversed the initial consecutive sentence because the trial court failed at the sentencing hearing to make the required finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the offender’s conduct and danger posed to the public.
- On June 8, 2020, Claar was resentenced again to consecutive 36-month terms and appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12.
- The sentencing entry contained language tracking R.C. 2929.11 but mistakenly cited R.C. 2929.19; the transcript and entry otherwise showed no indication the court failed to consider the statutory sentencing factors.
- The court affirmed, concluding a silent or non‑specific record permits a presumption that R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 were considered and that failing to expressly invoke “principles of sentencing” is not reversible error.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claar’s consecutive sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to give proper consideration to the purposes/principles of sentencing (R.C. 2929.11) and factors (R.C. 2929.12) | Trial court’s record and entry show consideration of purposes/factors; any omission was harmless and can be presumed from the record | Trial court did not properly consider R.C. 2929.11 principles at sentencing and the entry incorrectly cited R.C. 2929.19 instead | Affirmed: presumption that court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 from the record; failure to expressly cite “principles” is not reversible and sentence is not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clinton, 108 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio 2017) (presumes a trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 from a silent record)
- State v. Adams, 525 N.E.2d 1361 (Ohio 1988) (silent record gives rise to presumption that statutory sentencing factors were considered)
- State v. Cozzone, 114 N.E.3d 601 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (reiterating presumption that trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 despite lack of explicit statement)