State v. Dillon
2013 Ohio 335
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Dillon pleaded guilty to Counts I–IV of seven trafficking counts; Counts V–VII were dismissed.
- Sentencing court imposed consecutive terms on Counts I, II, III, and IV with specified durations.
- Court imposed a five-year license suspension and three years of optional post-release control.
- Dillon appealed, challenging the consecutive-sentencing findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) following HB 86.
- The trial court made three-pronged findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and cited the presentence investigation report.
- Appellate review followed Kalish-style scrutiny: first, legality; second, abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court complied with 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences. | Dillon argues record lacks support for necessary findings. | Dillon contends findings were not made or supported by record. | Court complied; findings supported by record. |
| Whether the sentence is an abuse of discretion under Kalish after HB 86. | Kalish framework shows potential misapplication of factors. | Court considered 2929.12 factors and mitigated by history and recidivism. | No abuse of discretion; sentence reasonable and supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 12th Dist. No CA2012-01-004, 2012-Ohio-4523 (12th Dist. 2012) (HB 86 2929.14(C)(4) three-step analysis)
- State v. Snyder, 3rd Dist. No. 13-11-37, 2012-Ohio-3069 (3rd Dist. 2012) (three-step test for consecutive sentences under 2929.14(C)(4))
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (Kalish framework for appellate review of felony sentencing)
- State v. Smith, State v. Smith, 12th Dist. No CA2012-01-004, 2012-Ohio-4523 (12th Dist. 2012) (HB 86 and 2929.14(C)(4) compliance)