State v. Collins
2021 Ohio 1663
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Just after 1:00 a.m. on Jan. 19, 2019, Collins drove a Chevy Blazer at a very high rate of speed, left the roadway, and crashed into a mobile home; the occupant Judith Wade (asleep inside) was severely injured and later died.
- Collins attempted to remove his vehicle from the wreckage, then fled the scene on foot; DNA from blood on the vehicle airbag led to his arrest; he admitted drinking and using cocaine before the crash.
- Indicted on aggravated vehicular homicide (second-degree felony) and failure to stop after an accident (third-degree felony); Collins pleaded no contest to both counts.
- At sentencing the court reviewed a security video, a PSI, victim impact statements, and heard allocution; it imposed maximum terms (8 years + 3 years) to be served consecutively (aggregate 11 years); Collins did not object at sentencing.
- Appellate issue: Collins claimed maximum and consecutive sentences were unsupported by the record and contrary to law; the trial court did not include the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings in the journal entry.
- Decision: The Tenth District affirmed the sentence (finding the record supported maximum, consecutive terms) but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to journalize the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the maximum and consecutive sentences were unsupported by the record or contrary to law | State: Court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, made required findings at sentencing, and record supports sentences | Collins: Record did not justify maximum/consecutive terms; not the worst form of the offenses | Affirmed: Record supports maximum consecutive sentences; Collins failed to show clear and convincing evidence that sentence is unsupported |
| Whether the trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings as required | State: Court made the requisite findings at the sentencing hearing | Collins: Findings must be journalized in the entry | Held: Findings were made at hearing (sufficient to uphold sentence) but not journalized; remand for nunc pro tunc entry to correct clerical omission |
| Standard of review given Collins' failure to object at sentencing | State: Review limited to plain error and Marcum clear-and-convincing-record standard | Collins: Challenges sentencing as erroneous despite no contemporaneous objection | Held: Plain-error review applies; under Marcum the appellate court may vacate/modify only if clear and convincing evidence shows the record does not support the sentence; Collins failed to meet that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate courts may modify/vacate a sentence only if clear and convincing evidence shows the record does not support it)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C) consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them in the entry; reasons not required beyond discernible findings)
- State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436 (Ohio 2001) (preservation and plain-error framework for sentencing challenges)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (elements of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2008) (plain-error review should be exercised cautiously)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)