State v. Fletcher
2013 Ohio 3076
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Fletcher pled guilty to Illegal Assembly or Possession of Chemicals for Manufacture of Methamphetamines (R.C. 2925.041(A)(C)(1)), as amended to a third-degree felony, and was sentenced to 36 months.
- On August 31, 2012, Fletcher was stopped for obscured rear plate; a K-9 hit led to a search.
- The search recovered items in a red lunch bag commonly used to manufacture meth, prompting further investigation.
- Fletcher was indicted September 7, 2012 for illegal assembly/possession with intent to manufacture meth in the vicinity of a juvenile (felony second degree) and arraigned September 12, 2012.
- A motion to suppress was denied November 28, 2012 after a suppression hearing on November 15, 2012, and plea negotiations culminated in a December 19, 2012 plea to the amended third-degree charge.
- The December 21, 2012 judgment imposed a 36-month prison term, and Fletcher appeals asserting the trial court failed to properly consider and state compliance with RC 2929.11 and 2929.12, with the appellate court ultimately affirming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court properly consider RC 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing? | Fletcher argues the court failed to consider and explicitly reflect consideration of the statutes on the record. | Fletcher contends lack of explicit on-record statements violates statutory requirements. | No reversible error; record shows consideration and entry states it complied with the statutes. |
| Is the judgment entry sufficient to reflect consideration of sentencing factors even without explicit on-record findings? | The entry did not explicitly say it considered RC 2929.11/12 on the record. | Arnett allows a rote recital of consideration to satisfy the requirement. | Yes; entry stating consideration suffices; sentence within statutory range; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (no exact on-record language required; use of a rote recitation suffices to show consideration of 2929.12 factors)
- State v. Scanlon, 2009-Ohio-2305 (Ohio 3d Dist. 2009) (indicates recital of factors and entry reflecting consideration satisfies duties)
- State v. Patrick, 2011-Ohio-1592 (Ohio 10th Dist. 2011) (recitation of consideration may be rote and still adequate)
- State v. Reeves, 2010-Ohio-4018 (Ohio 10th Dist. 2010) (supports that explicit on-record statement may be unnecessary when entry reflects consideration)