2023 Ohio 3011
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- April 29, 2022: Collins indicted in Union County on six counts (three counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle—fourth-degree felonies—and three other felonies later dismissed).
- May 11, 2022: Collins pleaded not guilty; September 27, 2022: entered guilty pleas to the three grand-theft counts pursuant to a plea agreement; remaining counts dismissed.
- Presentence investigation prepared; November 10, 2022: trial court sentenced Collins to 18 months on each of the three counts (maximum for fourth-degree felonies).
- The trial court ordered the three 18-month terms to run consecutively to each other and consecutive to a sentence Collins had already received in a separate Champaign County case.
- Collins appealed, arguing the trial court erred by (1) imposing maximum sentences, (2) ordering consecutive sentences among the Union County counts, and (3) ordering consecutive service with the Champaign County sentence. The Third District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose maximum (18-month) terms for each fourth-degree grand-theft count | State: sentences are within statutory range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 | Collins: maximum terms unsupported by record; not the "worst form" of the offense; factual findings inconsistent with record | Affirmed — sentence within statutory range; record shows the court considered required statutes, so sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
| Whether the trial court permissibly ordered the Union County sentences to run consecutively to each other | State: court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record and in the entry | Collins: findings unsupported; consecutive sentences disproportionate | Affirmed — court made and incorporated the statutory findings; record (PSI, criminal history, conduct) supports non-disproportionality |
| Whether the court erred by ordering Union County sentences to run consecutively to an earlier-imposed Champaign County sentence | State: nothing in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires chronological ordering of sentences; court may order consecutive service of sentences already imposed | Collins: ordering consecutive to Champaign sentence is improper because Union County offenses preceded Champaign conduct | Affirmed — no temporal-order requirement in the statute; court’s imposition of consecutive service to the Champaign sentence was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for reversing a felony sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (trial court discretion in sentencing and weighting of R.C. 2929.12 factors)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (requirements for consecutive-sentence findings and incorporation into the entry)
- Jones v. State, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (2020) (limits on appellate reweighing of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations under R.C. 2953.08)