State v. Hicks
2021 Ohio 2437
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Appellant Leonard J. Hicks, Jr. was indicted for third-degree felony domestic violence based on an April 13, 2020 incident in which he allegedly punched and twice strangled his live-in girlfriend, caused visible injuries, and took her phone to prevent a 911 call. Hicks claimed intoxication from a spiked drink.
- Hicks pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea; the state recommended an 18-month cap but the court warned Hicks it could impose up to 36 months plus post-release control.
- The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a presentence investigation, and at sentencing rejected the state's 18-month recommendation and imposed 24 months in prison.
- The trial court emphasized Hicks’s extensive criminal history: multiple prior domestic-violence and protection-order convictions, repeated probations, prior participation in domestic-violence programming, three prior felonies, and numerous misdemeanors.
- Hicks timely appealed, arguing the sentence violated R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 because the trial court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors (remorse, amenability to treatment/placement at a Correctional Treatment Facility) and should have imposed community control with treatment.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court considered statutory factors, the sentence was within the statutory range, and appellate courts may not reweigh sentencing factors on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence violated R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 by failing to properly consider purposes and factors of sentencing | State: Trial court considered purposes and factors, sentenced within statutory range, and record supports the sentence | Hicks: Trial court failed to give weight to remorse and treatment amenability; community control/CTF placement with treatment would better satisfy R.C. 2929.11 purposes | Affirmed: Trial court’s consideration is presumed; appellate court may not independently reweigh factors; sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clinton, 108 N.E.3d 1 (2017) (a trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is presumed even on a silent record)
- State v. Cyrus, 586 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio 1992) (trial court need not make specific factual findings on the record when applying R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12)