2013 Ohio 818
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Drobny appeals his sentences from two joined cases: CR-558241 (theft, fifth-degree felony) and CR-558198 (burglary, third-degree felony).
- At sentencing, the court ordered 11 months on theft consecutive to 30 months on burglary, to be served consecutively.
- The court stated the consecutive terms were necessary due to the harm caused and his lengthy criminal history.
- Drobny argued the court had no authority to impose consecutive sentences because of a drafting error in the then-applicable version of R.C. 2929.41(A).
- The trial court relied on revived pre-Foster sentencing provisions to authorize consecutive sentencing under R.C. 2929.14(C).
- The Eighth District affirmed, holding the court was authorized to impose consecutive sentences under the corrected statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were authorized under the revised statute. | Drobny argues the drafting error removed authority for consecutives. | Drobny contends lack of statutory authority due to misdrafting. | Consecutive sentences authorized under R.C. 2929.14(C). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (revival of sentencing provisions pre-Foster)
- State v. Ryan, 8th Dist. No. 98005 (2012-Ohio-5070) (applies revived statute as intended; fixes cross-reference in 2929.41(A))
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (dialogue on pre-Foster sentencing framework)