State v. Jackson
2019 Ohio 3299
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Kaitlin Jackson pled guilty to one second-degree burglary, four third-degree burglaries, and three fourth-degree counts of receiving stolen property as part of a plea deal for a multi-burglary scheme to fund drug use.
- Jackson pawned stolen items; co-defendants executed break-ins. Victims included friends and family; losses included jewelry, firearms, heirlooms, and large cash sums.
- At sentencing the court imposed an 8-year term for the second-degree count and a consecutive 2-year term on one third-degree count (aggregate 10 years); other counts ran concurrent to that term.
- The trial court gave written findings addressing R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), but failed to articulate all required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings orally at the sentencing hearing.
- Jackson challenged the court’s seriousness/recidivism findings, the imposition of consecutive sentences, and claimed the aggregate sentence was constitutionally excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors | State: Court properly considered and weighed factors; written reasons show consideration | Jackson: Court erred in its seriousness/recidivism findings and misapplied statutory factors | Held: Court adequately considered 2929.11/2929.12; record supports individual-count sentences |
| Whether consecutive sentences satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (three required findings) | State: Judgment entry contains the required findings; consecutive terms appropriate given harm and danger to public | Jackson: Trial court failed to make required findings at the sentencing hearing; consecutive terms unlawful | Held: Reversed as to consecutive sentences—trial court failed to make proportionality and subsection (b) findings orally; remand for resentencing limited to that issue |
| Whether aggregate 10-year sentence is constitutionally excessive/shocks the conscience | State: Sentence supported by harm, victim impact, and need for protection/punishment | Jackson: Aggregate sentence excessive and shocks the community’s sense of justice | Held: Court did not decide excessiveness of aggregate sentence because consecutive component vacated and remanded; did not find individual counts contrary to law |
| Standard of appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and Marcum | State: Appellate review is deferential; reversal only if record clearly and convincingly fails to support findings or sentence is contrary to law | Jackson: Applies the same standard but argues findings were unsupported | Held: Court reiterates Marcum/White standard—appellate relief requires clear-and-convincing showing that record does not support findings or sentence is otherwise contrary to law; used that standard to review this case |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (defines appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requires R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing hearing and permits non‑talismanic language if findings discernible)
- State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (Ohio 2018) (vacatur and remand required where trial court omitted proportionality finding at sentencing)
- State v. White, 997 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (interpreting limits of appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))