2024 Ohio 81
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Christopher Drummond was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle and failure to appear, both fourth-degree felonies.
- He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to both charges in exchange for 24 months of community control, with reserved prison terms (18 months per offense) to be imposed consecutively if violated.
- Drummond later violated community control by absconding supervision, missing drug screens, and not reporting to probation; after admitting these violations, he was sentenced to a total of 36 months in prison (consecutive terms).
- He appealed the revocation and consecutive sentences, and also argued his appellate counsel was unlawfully denied a copy of his presentence investigation (PSI) report.
- The court administratively denied his challenge to the underlying failure to appear conviction and consolidated the appeals for review.
Issues
| Issue | Drummond's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality/ IAC on Failure to Appear Conviction | Conviction was unconstitutional due to ineffective assistance at plea hearing. | Record shows own recognizance bond; Drummond failed to properly appeal this conviction. | Not considered; administratively stricken from appeal. |
| Imposition of Consecutive Sentences | Trial court erred by pre-determining consecutive sentences at initial hearing, not at revocation. | Required consecutive sentencing findings were properly made; supported by Drummond’s conduct and record. | Consecutive sentences affirmed; findings were made on revocation, supported by record. |
| Denial of Copy of Presentence Investigation (PSI) Report | Appellate counsel entitled to copy of PSI under statute and for effective appeal. | Law allows in-person inspection but not retention of copy; practice consistent with statutes/Supreme Court cases. | Counsel may inspect but not retain PSI; denial of copy was lawful, following precedent. |
| Constitutional Challenge to PSI Access Policy | Classification favoring others over defense is irrational and unconstitutional under Equal Protection. | Not directly addressed—constitutional challenge not raised at trial court level. | Not addressed; not preserved for appeal as not raised below. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (consecutive sentence findings requirements)
- State v. Howard, 162 Ohio St.3d 314 (notice and imposition of reserved consecutive sentences after community control violation)
- State v. Johnson, 138 Ohio St.3d 282 (appellate counsel's access to presentence investigation reports)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (requirement to raise constitutional issues first at trial level)