State v. Davila
2013 Ohio 4922
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Davila pleaded guilty to abduction and grand theft of a motor vehicle as part of a plea agreement; he agreed to a prison term and a five-year protection order.
- Sentencing was scheduled for a later date; Davila failed to appear and was later arrested.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed consecutive terms: 36 months for abduction and 18 months for grand theft, for an aggregate 54 months.
- Davila appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The trial court relied on Davila’s extensive violent criminal history and threats to kill the victim in finding consecutive sentences necessary to protect the public, but did not expressly find that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct or danger posed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences | State: court’s comments about seriousness and danger satisfy statutory requirements | Davila: court failed to make the specific proportionality finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | The court held the trial court did not make all required findings; reversal and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goins, N.E.3d (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (discussing appellate review standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and requirement that required findings be clear in the record)
- State v. Richmond, N.E.3d (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (explaining the three distinct findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))
- State v. Wilson, N.E.3d (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (prohibiting appellate inference of required findings when not clearly made by the trial court)