State v. Grier
2013 Ohio 1661
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Grier was indicted on multiple counts including attempted murder, felonious assault, and aggravated burglary, with accompanying firearm specifications, and was on probation for four prior cases at the time.
- He pleaded not guilty on July 22, 2011, and after numerous pretrials, entered a plea on May 12, 2012 to amended misdemeanor assault and a fourth-degree burglary, with the state dismissing other charges and firearm specs.
- On June 8, 2012, the trial court sentenced Grier to concurrent terms of six months for assault and 18 months for burglary, and 28 months on the four probationary cases, with the total to be served consecutively to the most recent case, totaling 46 months.
- Grier challenged the consecutive sentencing on appeal, arguing the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive terms under HB 86 and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the sentencing and statutory requirements for consecutive sentences under HB 86 after recognizing the mandatory findings.
- The court held that the trial court’s findings were sufficient and that the consecutive sentence complied with statutory requirements, affirming the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were authorized by law | Grier argues the court lacked authority to impose consecutive terms. | Grier contends the court properly exercised its discretion under HB 86. | Consecutive sentences were properly imposed and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 97579, 2012-Ohio-2508 (8th Dist. 2012) (requires meaningful review of sentencing findings under HB 86)
- State v. Hites, 3d Dist. No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3d Dist. 2012) (establishes standard for review of consecutive-sentence findings)
- State v. Goins, 8th Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263 (8th Dist. 2013) (requires record to reflect analysis and selection of appropriate criteria)
- State v. Battle, 8th Dist. No. 98294, 2013-Ohio-816 (8th Dist. 2013) (constructs the sufficiency of statutory analysis for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 1999-Ohio-110 (Ohio St. 1999) (non-mumeric but authoritative on statutory findings for sentencing)