State v. Collins
2022 Ohio 3872
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Allen County indicted Donald L. Collins, III on seven felonies (including rape, felonious assault, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, attempted murder); Collins initially pleaded not guilty.
- Pursuant to a negotiated plea, Collins pleaded guilty to amended Counts One (sexual battery, felony 3), Two (attempted rape, felony 2), Three (felonious assault, felony 2), Four (burglary, felony 2), and Five (abduction, felony 3); two counts were dismissed.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed terms within the statutory ranges (60 months, 36 months, and 8–12 years on various counts) and ordered the terms to run consecutively for an aggregate term of 32–36 years; Collins was classified as a Tier II sex offender.
- Collins appealed, arguing (1) the trial court ignored/failed to weigh mitigating factors and thus erred in imposing maximum sentences, and (2) the court imposed consecutive sentences without making the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings or support in the record.
- The trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors, found Collins’ conduct unusually serious and indicative of recidivism, and made the consecutive-sentence findings (noting the offenses were part of a course of conduct and the harm was so great/unusual).
- The Third District affirmed: sentences were within statutory ranges, the record shows the required consecutive-sentence findings, and under controlling Ohio Supreme Court precedent the appellate role is limited in reviewing sentences based only on R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Collins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly imposed maximum sentences (failed to consider sentencing purposes/mitigating factors) | Trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and has discretion to weigh them; sentence within statutory range | Trial court failed to weigh mitigating factors and thus maximum terms are contrary to law | Affirmed — sentences are within statutory ranges; trial court considered required factors; appellate review is limited under Jones and cannot vacate solely because record might not support R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 balancing |
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without required findings or record support under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court made the required findings on the record and incorporated them in the entry; offenses were part of a course of conduct and harm was great/unusual | Trial court failed to make specific findings and record does not support them | Affirmed — court made statutory findings (necessity, proportionality, and (C)(4)(b) course-of-conduct/great-or-unusual-harm); record (victim statement, plea facts) supports those findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (sets out standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (Ohio 2020) (limits appellate relief under R.C. 2953.08 where sentence rests solely on R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences but need not use talismanic language)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (trial court has broad discretion in weighing sentencing factors)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (a court's statement that it considered statutory factors can be sufficient)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)