State v. Hill
2014 Ohio 919
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Head-on collision in July 2012; Hill threatened to shoot officer Pallo during investigation and assaulted her for 8 minutes causing multiple injuries.
- Indictment charged Hill with assault, resisting arrest, and aggravated menacing; resisting arrest later dismissed; Hill pled guilty to assault and aggravated menacing under a plea agreement.
- Sentences: 18 months for assault and 12 months for aggravated menacing, to run concurrently; victim impact and character/witness input considered at sentencing.
- Hearing included victim impact statement, Hill’s statement, and a defense/witness testimony; trial court sentenced after considering these inputs and the PSI.
- On appeal, Hill challenges the standard of review for felony sentencing, the consideration of mitigating factors in 2929.12(E)(3)-(5), and whether the court’s personal opinion biased the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for felony sentencing | Hill argues abuse-of-discretion review. | State contends only clear-and-convincing-law standard applies (R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)). | Two standards apply; but in this case, outcome the same: sentence affirmed. |
| Whether mitigating factors 2929.12(E)(3)-(5) were considered | Hill asserts court did not consider long-term law-abiding life and remorse. | Court did consider remorses and prior record; not required to use specific language. | Court properly considered relevant factors; no error. |
| Whether the court’s personal opinion governed the sentence | Hill alleges moral judgments show predetermination. | Court read records anew at sentencing; statements were contextual, not predetermination. | No predetermination; rulings were based on the record and rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (holding unconstitutional some sentencing findings; trial court discretion within statutory range)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step standard of review; post-Foster era)
- State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (8th Dist. 2013) (reinstated statutory review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) post HB 86)
- State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225 (1st Dist. Hamilton) (endorsed statutory standard after HB 86)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (reaffirmed constitutionality of consecutive-sentence findings; HB 86 response)