State v. Heinlein
2017 Ohio 7425
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mark Heinlein was indicted for grand theft (firearm), a third-degree felony, and receiving stolen property, a fourth-degree felony; he pleaded guilty to grand theft and the receiving-stolen-property count was dismissed in exchange for CCS recommendation.
- The State recommended community control sanctions (CCS); the trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
- The PSI recommended prison, noting lack of candor about the offense, daily heroin use the defendant did not acknowledge as a problem, and failure to complete a court-ordered drug/alcohol assessment.
- At sentencing the trial court stated it considered the parties’ statements, the PSI, and R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, and found Heinlein not amenable to CCS.
- The court imposed an 18-month prison term (within the statutory range for a third-degree felony) and court costs.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no meritorious issues; this court performed an independent Anders review and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 18-month prison sentence is contrary to law | Court may impose any authorized sentence; 18 months is within statutory range | Sentence is excessive because State recommended CCS | Held: Not contrary to law; 18 months is within authorized range and plea warned defendant CCS might not be imposed |
| Whether the record fails to support trial court’s findings for prison vs. CCS | Trial court considered PSI, parties’ statements, and statutory factors showing defendant not amenable to CCS | Record does not support findings; trial court ignored CCS recommendation | Held: No reversible error; PSI and statements (drug abuse denial, lack of remorse, failure to complete assessment) support conclusion defendant not amenable to CCS |
| Whether trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors | Trial court stated it considered purposes/principles of sentencing and balanced seriousness/recidivism factors | Trial court did not make detailed findings, so record may not show consideration | Held: No requirement to articulate detailed findings; trial court need only consider statutory factors and did so here |
| Whether the guilty plea was invalid | Plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, after Crim.R. 11 compliance | Plea validity challenged implicitly via sentencing dispute | Held: Plea was valid; Crim.R. 11 fully complied with and no indicia of involuntariness |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel files a brief asserting no meritorious issues)
- State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (trial court has discretion to impose any authorized sentence and need not articulate detailed findings)
- State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when sentencing)
- State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (discussion of sentencing considerations and appellate review)