State v. Delong
2022 Ohio 207
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Todd DeLong II was charged in two Clark County cases: originally indicted for aggravated burglary, felonious assault, theft, violating a protection order, and two failure-to-comply counts (2021-CR-36), and separately for receiving stolen property (2021-CR-160).
- DeLong pled guilty (after the aggravated burglary count was amended to trespass into a habitation) to trespass into a habitation (fourth-degree felony) and to receiving stolen property (fourth-degree felony).
- DeLong’s plea form acknowledged he caused physical harm to the victim; the court found the victim suffered facial trauma (a broken septum) from a punch.
- The trial court classified the trespass as an "offense of violence," concluded community control was not mandatory, and imposed consecutive 18‑month prison terms (aggregate 36 months).
- The court justified consecutive terms because the receiving‑stolen‑property offense was committed while DeLong was under indictment in the other case and because the State had dismissed more serious charges in the first case.
- DeLong appealed, arguing the trial court erred by (1) imposing prison when community control was mandatory and (2) imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (DeLong) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prison was improper because community control was mandatory under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) | Community control not mandatory because the trespass was an "offense of violence" involving physical harm. | Community control should have been mandatory for a fourth‑degree felony absent prior felony conviction. | Court: Overruled. Plea and facts show physical harm; offense was an offense of violence, so community control not mandatory. |
| Whether consecutive sentences were improper | Consecutive terms justified: one offense occurred while DeLong was under indictment/subject to a warrant; court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to protect the public and to punish. | Consecutive sentences disproportionate/unsupported by the record. | Court: Overruled. Trial court made and incorporated required findings; record supports consecutive sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Withrow, 64 N.E.3d 553 (Ohio App. 2016) (appellate reversal of consecutive sentences requires clear-and-convincing showing that the record does not support the trial court's findings)
- State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio App. 2013) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range and is not required to make on-the-record findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Brown, 99 N.E.3d 1135 (Ohio App. 2017) (sentence is contrary to law when court fails to consider required sentencing purposes or factors)