State v. Galindo-Barjas
2013 Ohio 431
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Victor M. Galindo-Barjas pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated vehicular assault and one OMVI after a July 25, 2011 head-on collision while intoxicated.
- Prosecutor had recommended a ten-year term; sentence imposed was two consecutive four-year prison terms for the felonies and 180 days for OMVI, with concurrent incarceration for OMVI.
- Victims Lauren Carissimi and Bruce Minnotti testified about severe, lasting injuries and emotional distress.
- Judgment entered January 31, 2012; Galindo-Barjas timely appealed challenging the sentencing as an abuse of discretion.
- Trial court made the mandatory findings under the post-Foster, post-Ice statutory regime to impose consecutive sentences and explained findings at the hearing and in the judgment.
- Appellant argued that basing the sentence on “serious physical harm” was improper because it is an element of aggravated vehicular assault; he also argued the court failed to provide reasons for consecutive terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court base consecutive sentences on an element of the crime? | Galindo-Barjas contends serious physical harm is an element and cannot support enhancement. | Galindo-Barjas argues reliance on an element invalidates consecutive sentences. | No error; harm-based enhancement permissible; harm varies and is broader than element. |
| Did the court properly impose consecutive sentences under the new statute and articulate findings/reasons? | Galindo-Barjas claims insufficient reasoning for consecutive sentences. | Galindo-Barjas asserts no need to articulate reasons for findings under the new statute. | Court complied with the statutory findings; need not articulate reasons for the findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gratz, 2009-Ohio-695 (7th Dist. 2009) (causes standard for clearly and convincingly contrary to law review)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (applies to sentencing review framework)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (disallows mandatory judicial fact-finding for sentencing)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (consecutive sentences authority unaffected by Apprendi/Blakely concerns)
- State v. Hodge, 2010-Ohio-6320 (128 Ohio St.3d 1) (clarifies Foster and Ice interaction on consecutive sentencing)
- State v. Bates, 2008-Ohio-1983 (Ohio St.3d) (retains discretion to order consecutive sentences post-Ice)
- State v. Comer, 2003-Ohio-4165 (99 Ohio St.3d 463) (syllabus on required findings for consecutive sentences under new law)
- State v. Just, 2012-Ohio-4094 (9th Dist. 2012) (consecutive sentencing findings under new statute; reasons not required)
- State v. Stroud, 2008-Ohio-3187 (7th Dist. 2008) (element-based maximum term concern similar to manslaughter case)