State v. Crandall, 2016 Ohio 7920

On Dec. 16, 2015, Robert E. Crandall was indicted on two counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)) and a third count later dismissed; trial occurred Feb. 8–9, 2016.
Incident facts: after prior conflict with victim Samuel Strait over a woman, Crandall confronted Strait while holding a hammer, drove away, later returned and struck/ran over Strait with his truck and assaulted him with a hammer, causing puncture wounds and a broken foot; witnesses and police tied tire marks and the truck to Crandall.
Defense evidence: Crandall’s nephew testified Strait had smashed glass at Crandall’s home, punched Crandall’s truck, and was acting aggressively; Crandall left the scene and later encountered Strait walking before the assault.
At trial defense counsel requested jury instructions for the lesser included offense of Assault (granted) but did not request an instruction for Aggravated Assault (sudden passion/serious provocation).
Jury convicted Crandall of two counts of felonious assault; court merged counts and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment; Crandall appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an Aggravated Assault (serious provocation) instruction	State argued evidence did not show sufficient provocation or sudden passion and so instruction was not required; counsel’s failure therefore not prejudicial	Crandall argued evidence of broken glass, threats, and punching the truck constituted serious provocation requiring an aggravated assault instruction and counsel’s omission was ineffective assistance	Court held no ineffective assistance: evidence did not establish serious provocation or that Crandall acted in a sudden fit of rage when he left and later returned, so no instruction was required
Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 sentencing factors	State: sentencing entry and hearing show the court considered record, statements, victim impact, and statutory factors	Crandall: court focused on criminal history and punishment, failing to address other statutory factors or make explicit findings	Court held sentencing was proper: court stated it considered the record and statutory factors and the transcript shows the court weighed mitigating and aggravating considerations; no reversible error

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (1988) (aggravated assault as an inferior degree offense and definition of "serious provocation")
State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992) (words alone generally insufficient for serious provocation)
State v. Mack, 82 Ohio St.3d 198 (1998) (objective standard for provocation inquiry)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court has full discretion to impose a prison sentence within statutory range)