State v. Dillon
2017 Ohio 309
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ryan Dillon was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder, purposeful murder, felony murder, evidence tampering, and receiving stolen property for killing his mother; purposeful and felony murder were merged into aggravated murder at the original sentencing.
- The trial court initially sentenced Dillon to life without parole for aggravated murder and concurrent terms of 18 months (receiving stolen property) and 3 years (evidence tampering).
- This court reversed the aggravated-murder conviction (due to an evidentiary error) but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including the concurrent sentences for the two lesser offenses, and remanded for further proceedings. State v. Dillon, 63 N.E.3d 712 (2d Dist. 2016).
- On remand the State declined to retry aggravated murder and elected sentencing on purposeful murder; the trial court imposed 15 years-to-life for purposeful murder and re-imposed the 18-month and 3-year terms, but ordered all three sentences to run consecutively after making consecutive-sentence findings.
- Dillon appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to convert his previously concurrent 18-month and 3-year sentences into consecutive terms; the State defended the resentencing as proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dillon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could convert the previously imposed concurrent 18-month and 3-year sentences into consecutive terms on remand | Resentencing encompassed all counts and the court had authority to impose consecutive terms | The concurrent sentences were affirmed and final; converting them exceeded scope of remand and was unauthorized | Court: Trial court erred; the 18-month and 3-year terms must remain concurrent |
| Whether the trial court could impose the new 15 years-to-life purposeful-murder sentence consecutive to the (unchanged) lesser sentences | The new purposeful-murder sentence could be made consecutive to the other terms | Making the purposeful-murder sentence consecutive violates Pearce by increasing punishment on resentencing | Court: Permitted; ordering the new 15-to-life consecutive to the other (concurrent) terms was valid; aggregate is less severe than original life without parole |
| Whether the resentencing violated the presumption against vindictiveness (North Carolina v. Pearce) | Aggregate new term (≈18 years-to-life) did not exceed original aggregate (life without parole), so no vindictiveness | Any increase in consecutive structure constitutes harsher punishment post-appeal | Court: No Pearce violation because the new aggregate is shorter than original sentence and the purposeful-murder term individually is less severe than prior life without parole |
| Whether State v. Nelloms controls to allow consecutive sentences on remand | Nelloms supports consecutive sentencing on remand where remanded counts were resentenced | Nelloms distinguishes because here two sentences were affirmed and not remanded | Court: Nelloms not controlling here because two sentences were not before the court on remand; error was exceeding scope of remand when altering those affirmed sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (creates presumption of judicial vindictiveness when a harsher sentence is imposed after a successful appeal)
- State v. Dillon, 63 N.E.3d 712 (2d Dist. 2016) (prior opinion reversing aggravated-murder conviction but affirming other counts and sentences)
- State v. Nelloms, 144 Ohio App.3d 1 (2d Dist. 2001) (permitted longer aggregate sentence on remand where multiple counts were vacated and the remaining counts were remanded for resentencing)
Result: The appellate court modified the judgment to reflect a 15 years-to-life sentence for purposeful murder to run consecutive to the two lesser sentences, but ordered the 18-month and 3-year sentences remain concurrent, yielding an aggregate term of 18 years-to-life; as modified the judgment is affirmed.