2022 Ohio 1691
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Blake L. Curtis pled guilty to one count of felonious assault (2nd degree) and one count of aggravated assault (4th degree) for running over and then punching the victim.
- The trial court sentenced Curtis to an indefinite 6–9 years for felonious assault and 16 months for aggravated assault, ordered consecutively for a total term of 7 years 4 months to 10 years 4 months.
- The trial court made the statutory consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), including (c) that Curtis’s history of criminal conduct warranted consecutive terms.
- Curtis appealed, arguing (1) the (c) finding was unsupported because it relied on a single juvenile adjudication and impermissibly relied on the instant offenses, and (2) the sentences were excessive as a first-time felony offender.
- The court of appeals affirmed the sentences, finding the record (juvenile adjudications, adult misdemeanor convictions, dismissed charges, and a pending aggravated-menacing charge) supported the (c) finding, but remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction of a clerical error in the sentencing entry regarding prior "prison terms."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were consecutive sentences properly imposed under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c)? | Trial court made required findings at hearing and entry; record supports (c) finding. | Trial court relied only on a single juvenile adjudication and the instant offenses (which cannot be the basis), so (c) is unsupported. | Affirmed. Record showed multiple juvenile adjudications, adult misdemeanors, dismissed charges, and a pending charge; court may consider prior conduct (including dismissed charges) and may consider the instant offenses as part of overall history (though not as sole basis). |
| Are the imposed prison terms excessive/contrary to law under R.C. 2929.11? | Trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, imposed post-release control, and stayed within statutory ranges. | As a first-time felony offender, Curtis should have received minimum/lesser sanctions. | Affirmed. Sentences are within statutory range and the record shows the court considered statutory purposes and factors; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for felony sentences)
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them in entry)
- State v. Withrow, 64 N.E.3d 553 (Ohio 2016) (deferential review: appellate court may reverse only if record clearly and convincingly fails to support trial court findings)
- State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (trial court need not make specific factual findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Batiste, 154 N.E.3d 1220 (Ohio App.) (examined limits on relying on current-case offenses and single juvenile adjudication for (c) finding; court of appeals here disagreed with part of its reasoning)