State v. Cornelison
2014 Ohio 2884
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Robert J. Cornelison pled guilty to three counts of third-degree robbery and one count of first-degree petty theft; PSI and victim impact statements were prepared prior to sentencing.
- Trial court sentenced him to 30 months on each robbery count (to be served consecutively) and 6 months on the theft count (concurrent), for an aggregate 7½ years, and ordered restitution and court costs.
- Appellant filed a delayed appeal raising three assignments of error: (1) sentence contrary to law (weighting of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors); (2) court costs imposed without required notification about community service (former R.C. 2947.23); (3) ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to restitution, to file affidavit of indigency, and to object to costs notification).
- At sentencing the court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, victim impact statements, the PSI, defendant’s letters and prior criminal history, and found psychological harm to victims and that prior sanctions/treatment had failed.
- The court made the consecutive-sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), citing necessity to protect the public, proportionality, that offenses were part of a course of conduct producing great/unusual harm, and defendant’s criminal-history justification.
- Appellate court found the trial court erred in failing to notify about community-service-in-lieu-of-costs under the pre-amendment statute, modified the judgment to eliminate the possibility of community service in lieu of payment, and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cornelison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law for improper weighing of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors | Trial court properly considered statutory factors, victims’ psychological harm, defendant’s recidivism and failure of sanctions; sentence lawful | Court improperly weighed seriousness/recidivism; court ignored lack of physical harm and defendant's drug problem and remorse | Court held sentencing complied with Kalish; trial court considered required factors and did not impose a sentence contrary to law |
| Whether consecutive sentences complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Consecutive terms supported by findings: necessary to protect public/punish, not disproportionate, offenses part of course of conduct, defendant’s criminal history warrants consecutive terms | Consecutive findings were not supported by the record | Court held consecutive findings were supported (course of conduct and criminal history justified consecutive sentences) |
| Whether imposition of court costs complied with former R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) (notification about community service) | State concedes trial court failed to give required notification but proposes remedy eliminating community-service alternative | Court erred by imposing costs without required notification, prejudicing defendant | Court sustained error, modified judgment to remove possibility of community service in lieu of payment, and affirmed as modified |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (failure to object to restitution, file affidavit of indigency, object to costs notice) | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no prejudice shown—restitution amounts supported and court could impose restitution despite indigency; costs-notice failure caused no prejudice after modification | Counsel should have objected to restitution amount, filed indigency affidavit, and objected to costs notice | Court rejected ineffective-assistance claims: no prejudice from costs-notice omission; indigency filing would not have prevented restitution; counsel not deficient in failing to object to restitution given record support |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (establishes two-step standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 but need not make formal findings)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (review of sentencing-consideration requirement)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Seiber, 56 Ohio St.3d 4 (prejudice requirement for ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (deference to reasonable strategic decisions of counsel)