2016 Ohio 8419
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Robert J. Cornelison pleaded guilty to three third-degree robbery counts and one first-degree petty theft count; PSI and victim impact statements were prepared prior to sentencing.
- Trial court sentenced him to 30 months on each robbery count, ordered the three robbery terms to run consecutively (aggregate 7½ years), and imposed six months for theft concurrently; restitution and court costs were ordered.
- Cornelison pursued a delayed direct appeal; the Ohio Supreme Court remanded for this court to apply the felony-sentencing standard announced in State v. Marcum.
- On remand, Cornelison challenged: (1) that the sentence was contrary to law/unsupported by the record (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12), (2) imposition of consecutive sentences (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)), (3) imposition of court costs without advising about community service under former R.C. 2947.23, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The appellate court found the trial court had adequately considered statutory sentencing factors, justified consecutive sentences based on course of conduct and criminal history, but conceded the court did not give the statutorily required notice about community service in lieu of costs and modified the judgment to remove that possibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cornelison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | Trial court properly considered seriousness and recidivism factors and credibility of remorse; sentence lawful | Court failed to weigh factors favoring leniency (no physical harm, drug problem, genuine remorse) | Held: Sentence not contrary to law; court adequately considered statutory factors and explained reasons for prison |
| Whether consecutive sentences complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Consecutive terms necessary to protect public, not disproportionate; offenses were part of a course of conduct and defendant’s record justifies consecutive terms | Consecutive terms disproportionate / findings insufficient | Held: Affirmed — court made required findings (necessity, proportionateness, course of conduct and criminal-history basis) |
| Whether court erred by imposing costs without advising possibility of community service (former R.C. 2947.23) | State concedes trial court failed to give required notice | Failure prejudiced defendant’s rights under statute | Held: Error — court conceded noncompliance; remedy adopted: remove possibility of community service in lieu of costs; judgment modified accordingly |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective (restitution, indigency affidavit, costs notice) | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no prejudice from costs-notice omission; restitution supported by victim’s statement | Counsel unreasonably failed to object to restitution, failed to file indigency affidavit, failed re costs notice | Held: Ineffective-assistance claim denied — no prejudice shown for indigency or costs notice; restitution amounts were supported and counsel not deficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard: reverse/modify sentence only if clearly and convincingly contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 but need not make specific factual findings)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (consideration of statutory factors satisfied where record shows requisite consideration)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (1990) (restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence)