State v. Harris, 2020 Ohio 4600

Background

In May 2017 Harris and two others ingested illegal narcotics; one, Clay Gorby, overdosed and died. Harris and a co-defendant removed items from the scene and fled; Harris later called police but misidentified himself and gave the location of the body.
Harris was indicted for tampering with evidence (third-degree felony). He pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea and a PSI was ordered.
At sentencing the court heard Harris claim sobriety and participation in treatment (including Suboxone); the PSI contained an undated, unverified letter from a treatment provider.
The trial court imposed 30 months incarceration and ordered Harris to pay $14,616.71 in restitution for Gorby’s funeral expenses.
On appeal Harris raised five assignments of error: (I) ADA violation; (II) equal protection (disparate treatment vs. codefendant); (III) sentence unsupported by evidence; (IV) restitution improper; (V) ineffective assistance for failing to raise I–IV.
The appellate court affirmed the sentence except it vacated the restitution award as plain error because the decedent’s family was not shown to be a victim of the tampering offense or to have suffered an economic loss caused by the convicted offense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA (Assignment I) — sentencing discrimination based on opioid-use disorder/Suboxone	Harris: sentencing violated Title II ADA because his disability/treatment warranted non-prison sanction	State: sentence within statutory range; no authority that ADA requires particular criminal sentence; record lacks proof of disability or that sentence was based on disability	Court: Overruled — no plain error; record does not show judge sentenced because of disability; defendant failed to prove ADA violation
Equal Protection (Assignment II) — disparate sentence vs. codefendant	Harris: received harsher sentence because he took Suboxone	State: sentencing differences attributable to individualized factors; record lacks PSI/transcript for codefendant for comparison	Court: Overruled — no plain error; record silent as to meaningful comparators; different sentences permissible
Sufficiency/Reasonableness of Sentence (Assignment III)	Harris: sentence not supported by competent, credible evidence	State: trial court considered PSI and statutory factors; sentence within statutory range	Court: Overruled — sentence within statutory range; trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; no clear-and-convincing reason to modify
Restitution (Assignment IV) — $14,616.71 for funeral expenses	Harris: restitution improper because family not victim of tampering offense and loss not tied to convicted offense	State: restitution authorized by statute to victims for economic loss	Court: Sustained — vacated restitution as plain error because (a) tampering with evidence does not, on this record, make decedent’s family a victim suffering economic loss from that offense and (b) restitution appeared tied to death, not the tampering conviction
Ineffective Assistance (Assignment V) — counsel failed to raise I–IV	Harris: counsel deficient for not objecting on above grounds	State: no prejudice because underlying claims lack merit (except restitution)	Court: Overruled — no Strickland prejudice shown; counsel’s omissions did not render proceedings unreliable (restitution issue resolved on appeal)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (plain-error framework for unpreserved error on appeal)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain-error standard in Ohio criminal cases)
State v. Allen, 159 Ohio St.3d 75 (restitution: who qualifies as a "victim" for R.C. 2929.18)
State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (elements of tampering with evidence)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (appellate review of felony sentences in post-Foster era)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (severance of statutory sentencing findings)
State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (limits on appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of "clear and convincing" evidence)