State v. Harris
2016 Ohio 7482
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Isaiah Harris was indicted in two Cuyahoga County cases: one for drug offenses and one for human-trafficking/prostitution offenses.
- During the drug trial the state filed a sealed motion alleging Harris contacted testifying witnesses; shortly thereafter Harris accepted a plea agreement to both cases.
- The state recommended a 12-year sentence; the court rejected that recommendation and imposed an aggregate 20-year prison term by running the two cases consecutively.
- The trial court merged certain redundant counts and imposed concurrent and consecutive terms as reflected in the journal entry.
- Harris appealed solely arguing the consecutive sentences were contrary to law, excessive, and possibly based on an improper extrinsic factor (the sealed motion alleging witness contact).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consecutive-sentence findings | State: trial court made the requisite statutory findings and incorporated them in the entry | Harris: the court merely recited statutory language and failed to state fact-specific reasons, so findings are insufficient | Court: findings were made on the record and in the entry; recitation is sufficient under Bonnell and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) |
| Excessiveness of sentence | State: sentencing discretion appropriate; court articulated reasons for deviation | Harris: 20-year aggregate exceeds recommended 12 years and is excessive | Court: appellate review limited by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); cannot reweigh or review for abuse of discretion, so claim fails |
| Use of sealed motion/alleged improper factor | State: court expressly stated it deviated due to harm to victims | Harris: court may have relied on sealed motion alleging witness contact | Court: record shows the court’s stated basis was victim harm; no indication sentence rested on the sealed motion; claim rejects improper consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial courts must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and incorporate them in the entry but need not state reasons on the record)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (R.C. 2953.08 defines the limited standard of appellate review for felony-sentencing appeals)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (judicial factfinding to impose consecutive sentences is constitutional)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (addressed statutory findings for consecutive sentences prior to subsequent U.S. Supreme Court and legislative developments)
- State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (2008) (pre-H.B. 86 precedent concerning sentencing findings)