State v. Davison
2011 Ohio 1528
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Davison was accused in October 2009 of involvement in a Route 58 shooting that wounded Rodney Cannon and led to his hospitalization.
- Davison initially claimed he was shot in a drive-by and not that he fired a weapon; he later admitted the Route 58 incident, but insisted he never shot anyone or possessed a firearm.
- On October 20, 2009, a grand jury indicted Davison on nine counts, including firearm specifications; after suppression, the State dismissed two counts and severed two others for later trial.
- Five counts remained for jury trial; the jury found Davison not guilty on all five counts.
- Davison waived jury trial on the severed counts; bench trial on those counts resulted in convictions for two counts of having a weapon while under disability, with court appraising them as allied offenses of similar import and sentencing Davison to five years.
- Davison appeals three assignments of error challenging (1) trial in his absence, (2) admission of prior-conviction evidence, and (3) sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 et seq.; the appellate court affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial conducted in absence prejudiced Davison | Davison argues due process violation due to absence during continuance. | Davison's counsel objected; no prejudice shown by missing the continuance. | Assignment overruled; no demonstrated prejudice. |
| Admission of prior-conviction evidence; Crim.R. 32 compliance | Exhibits proving prior convictions did not satisfy Crim.R. 32(C). | Record insufficient to review; record not provided; argument unsupported. | Assignment overruled; record incomplete; arguments not supported. |
| Compliance with sentencing factors (R.C. 2929.11 et seq.) | Court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors before five-year term. | Sentence within statutory range; presumption that factors were considered; no explicit finding required. | Assignment overruled; sentence presumed to reflect statutory factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008-Ohio-3426) (defendant has right to be present at all critical stages; valid waivers by counsel may occur)
- State v. Kiley, 9th Dist. No. 10CA009757, 2011-Ohio-1156 (2011-Ohio-1156) (record must show absence and prejudice to prevail on right-to-confront)
- State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5048 (2007-Ohio-5048) (waiver of presence by defense counsel permissible in certain circumstances)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856 (2006-Ohio-856) (court may impose sentence within statutory range; no mandatory findings)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855 (2006-Ohio-855) (trial court must consider sentencing factors; no requirement to state reasons)
- State v. Estright, 9th Dist. No. 24401, 2009-Ohio-5676 (2009-Ohio-5676) (presumption of statutory-factor consideration when within range)
- State v. Rutherford, 2d Dist. No. 08CA11, 2009-Ohio-2071 (2009-Ohio-2071) (presumption that relevant factors were considered when within range)