State v. DiBell
2020 Ohio 734
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Matthew Thomas DiBell pled guilty in six Ashtabula County cases, including second-degree burglary and fourth-degree grand theft in Case No. 2019 CR 00020.
- At a joint sentencing hearing (May 22, 2019) the State sought a global six-year term; defense urged treatment (drug court/NEOCAP) and emphasized DiBell's youth and remorse.
- The trial court imposed concurrent sentences: six years for burglary, one year for grand theft, and concurrent shorter terms on the other cases.
- At sentencing the court stated it had considered R.C. 2929.11 purposes and R.C. 2929.12 factors but, at the hearing, expressly mentioned only punishment and public protection (omitting an explicit oral reference to rehabilitation); the written entry recited consideration of the statutes and noted the sentence did not place an unnecessary burden on the state.
- DiBell appealed, arguing the court’s omission of the rehabilitation purpose at the hearing showed it failed to fully consider R.C. 2929.11 and therefore abused its discretion in imposing six years.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the sentence was contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and affirmed the trial court’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by mentioning only two of the three R.C. 2929.11 sentencing purposes at the hearing (omitting explicit oral reference to rehabilitation) | State: The court reasonably considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and the record shows rehabilitation was considered; omission of exact phrasing at hearing is not reversible error. | DiBell: The court’s failure to expressly state the rehabilitation purpose at sentencing shows it did not consider that purpose, rendering the sentence contrary to law. | Court affirmed: expressing only some purposes orally did not prove failure to consider rehabilitation; the record (hearing and entry) shows R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 were considered and six-year term is not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (explains limited appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and when a sentence may be found contrary to law)
- Cincinnati v. Clardy, 57 Ohio App.2d 153 (distinguishable example where reversal was required under different statutory framework and facts involving a maximum sentence for a defendant with no prior record)