State v. Henslee
2017 Ohio 5786
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Sept. 2016 Henslee and a co-defendant stole a safe from a business and removed over $5,000.00.
- Grand jury indicted Henslee on one count of safecracking (4th-degree) and two counts (breaking-and-entering, theft) (5th-degree felonies).
- Henslee pleaded guilty pursuant to a joint recommendation for community control and restitution; court ordered PSI and drug/alcohol evaluation.
- While jailed awaiting sentencing Henslee accrued seven behavioral infractions; at sentencing the court rejected the joint recommendation and imposed concurrent nine-month prison terms (aggregate 9 months) and restitution; Henslee did not object at sentencing.
- Henslee appealed, arguing the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and failed to make required findings under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b) before imposing prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Henslee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to consider the purposes/principles of sentencing (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | The court complied — sentencing entry shows required factors were considered | Trial court did not adequately consider or articulate the statutory sentencing factors | Court held no error: a statement in the entry that the factors were considered suffices; no need to recite each factor on the record |
| Whether the court failed to make required findings under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b) before imposing prison for nonviolent 4th/5th-degree felonies | The record supports imprisonment because no appropriate community-placement existed; court properly exercised discretion | The court erred by not making specific statutory findings before imposing incarceration | Court held no plain error: R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) criteria were met and the court permissibly sentenced to prison where community-placement was not appropriate; specific on-the-record findings are not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist. 1983) (accelerated calendar permits brief, conclusory appellate dispositions)
- State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (Ohio 2002) (plain error requires obvious, outcome-determinative error affecting substantial rights)
- State v. Amos, 140 Ohio St.3d 238 (Ohio 2014) (plain-error review in sentencing context requires showing sentence is contrary to law)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error relief is limited and to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances)