State v. Davis
2012 Ohio 3951
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Davis pled guilty to offenses in three separate Cuyahoga County cases in November 2011.
- In CR-554690, he pled guilty to burglary and grand theft; the court sentenced to six years for burglary and 12 months for grand theft, to run concurrent to each other but consecutive to the other two cases.
- In CR-555904, he pled guilty to burglary and theft; vandalism was dismissed; the court sentenced to three years for burglary and six months for theft, to run concurrent to each other but consecutive to the other two cases.
- In CR-553823, he pled guilty to breaking and entering and grand theft; other charges were dismissed; the court sentenced to 12-month terms concurrent to each other but consecutive to the other two cases.
- In total, the court imposed an aggregate ten-year prison term.
- Davis appeals claiming the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without the specific findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) as amended by House Bill 86.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences under HB86 | Davis argues the court failed to make required HB86 findings. | State contends the court made on-record findings and substantial compliance suffices. | Consecutive findings satisfied; assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (2003-Ohio-4165) (requires on-record findings under HB 86)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (restructuring of sentencing scheme; limits/mechanics of findings)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step review for felony sentences under HB 86)
- State v. Parrish, 8th Dist. No. 97482, 2012-Ohio-3153 (2012-Ohio-3153) (HB 86 findings properly analyzed on record)
- State v. Murrin, 8th Dist. No. 83714, 2004-Ohio-3962 (2004-Ohio-3962) (record must show appropriate analysis for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Brown, 8th Dist. No. 82298, 2004-Ohio-227 (2004-Ohio-227) (rejects silent-mental exercise; requires on-record findings)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Supreme Court on predicates for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2010-Ohio-6320) (Ohio Supreme Court addressing HB 86 continuity post-Foster)