2022 Ohio 4361
Ohio2022Background
- Michael Grevious was convicted of aggravated murder with a murder-for-hire specification; a jury found him guilty and, after declining to recommend death, recommended life without parole, which the trial court imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.03(D)(2)(c).
- Grevious appealed, arguing R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) ("A sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 ... is not subject to review under this section") is unconstitutional because it bars appellate review of aggravated-murder sentences.
- The Twelfth District concluded R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) was constitutional and declined to review Grevious’s nonconstitutional sentencing claims under R.C. 2953.08.
- This Court had earlier held in State v. Patrick that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude appellate review of constitutional challenges to aggravated-murder sentences.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ conclusion that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is constitutional, but—relying on Patrick—reversed the court of appeals' refusal to reach the merits of Grevious’s constitutional challenges and remanded for consideration of those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grevious) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is unconstitutional (facial and as-applied) under Equal Protection, Due Process, and the Eighth Amendment | R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) unlawfully denies appellate review to offenders with noncapital aggravated-murder sentences while permitting review for lesser felonies, causing unequal treatment and eliminating a check on sentencing abuse | Legislature rationally distinguished aggravated murder sentences because those sentences follow a different statutory scheme (jury-determined mandatory life terms) and R.C. 2953.08 targets appellate review of discretionary sentencing choices | Statute is constitutional: rational-basis review applies; differentiated sentencing schemes and the lack of trial-court discretion for Grevious’s statutory situation supply a legitimate purpose; both facial and as-applied challenges fail |
| Whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) entirely precludes appellate review of aggravated-murder sentences (including constitutional claims) | Grevious asserted the statute barred appellate review, preventing consideration of claims that sentences are contrary to law or unconstitutional | State argued the statute excludes aggravated-murder sentences from R.C. 2953.08 but does not eliminate other avenues of appellate review | Court reaffirmed Patrick: R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude appellate review of constitutional claims; the court of appeals erred in declining to review Grevious’s constitutional claims and must address their merits on remand |
| Whether Grevious has standing to challenge R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) | Grevious argued he was directly injured because the court of appeals relied on R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) to refuse review | State argued relief would not affectGrevious’s sentencing claims | Court held Grevious has standing: he is a member of the class allegedly disadvantaged by the statute and suffered injury by being denied appellate review under R.C. 2953.08 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio 2020) (R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not bar appellate review of constitutional challenges to aggravated-murder sentences)
- State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (Ohio 2005) (R.C. 2953.08(D) is unambiguous in barring review under that section)
- State v. Noling, 149 Ohio St.3d 327 (Ohio 2016) (statute creating different appellate routes for capital vs. noncapital petitioners violated equal protection)
- State v. Kinney, 163 Ohio St.3d 537 (Ohio 2020) (procedural context for accepting appeals addressing R.C. 2953.08 challenges)
- Fed. Communications Comm. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (challenger bears burden to negate any reasonably conceivable state of facts supporting a classification)
- State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 164 Ohio St. 142 (Ohio 1955) (party challenging statute must show beyond reasonable doubt incompatibility with Constitution — discussed as historical standard)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1987) (equal protection claim based on racial disparities requires proof of discriminatory purpose)