2011 Ohio 999
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Shannon Irwin was convicted of three counts of felonious assault on Edward Hoopes, who had advanced ALS, while Irwin was his fiancé and caretaker.
- Following remand after Foster, Irwin faced resentencing hearings and new post-judgment motions regarding new-trial evidence, sentencing-expert funding, and subpoenas at sentencing.
- Irwin moved for a new trial based on civil-trial deposition testimony not available at the criminal trial, arguing newly discovered evidence and unavailability; the court denied leave to file and later denied the motion on the merits.
- Irwin sought funding for an expert at sentencing to address peginterferon-induced psychosis; the court denied the request, finding insufficient evidence that the drug caused her July 7, 2004 assault.
- Irwin requested subpoenas at the state’s expense for witnesses at the resentencing; the court denied this, holding the right to compulsory process does not extend to sentencing.
- At resentencing, the court imposed maximum, consecutive eight-year sentences on the three felonious-assault counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a new trial was an abuse of discretion | Irwin asserts newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial. | State contends witnesses could have been subpoenaed earlier and the evidence wouldn’t change outcome. | Not an abuse; evidence unlikely to change result; overruled. |
| Whether due process required funding for an expert at sentencing | Indigent defendant should have expert assistance at state expense if necessary for a fair trial. | No showing that peginterferon-induced psychosis affected the July 7 assault; court did not err. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the denial of subpoenas at sentencing violated rights | Defendant has a constitutional right to compulsory process at sentencing. | Right applies to trial, not sentencing; subpoenas were not required. | Right not applicable at sentencing; denied. |
| Whether failure to make statutory findings for consecutive-sentencing violated law | Court should make judicial findings under governing statutes. | Foster severed those mandatory-finding provisions; Ice did not revive them; findings not required. | No error; Hodge later confirms no mandatory findings needed. |
| Whether denial of a sentencing jury violated due process | Foster/And Blakely require a sentencing jury for determinations affecting punishment. | Foster severed those requirements; no jury right at sentencing. | Overruled; no sentencing jury right under current law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (new-trial standard for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Pinkerman, 88 Ohio App.3d 158 (Ohio 1993) (leave to file Crim.R. 33(b) review standard)
- State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 (Ohio 1998) (due process and expert assistance standards)
- State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 2008) (Ake/Mason factors for public-funded experts)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (severance of unconstitutional sentencing provisions)
- State v. Hodge, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6320 (Ohio 2010) (Ice does not revive Foster; no mandatory factual findings)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. 2009) (no federal requirement for judicial fact-finding in consecutive sentences)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be jury-found)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (limits judge-found facts increasing sentence beyond maximum)