State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 362
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Dominic Jackson pleaded guilty to felony receiving stolen property (firearm) and was sentenced to two years of community control with conditions including GED, fees, and forfeiture; court warned an 18-month prison term could follow violations.
- Jackson missed probation meetings and fee payments; the trial court found he violated community control and held a revocation hearing where he stipulated to the violations.
- At the June 2014 hearing the judge initially said he might continue community control but, after a brief exchange and refusing Jackson’s attempts to speak, terminated community control and imposed the 18-month prison term.
- Jackson appealed, arguing the trial court violated Crim.R. 32(A)(1) and R.C. 2929.19(A) by not affording allocution before sentencing; the state contended allocution does not apply at community-control-revocation hearings.
- The First District agreed with Jackson, ordered resentencing; the state appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a community-control-revocation hearing is a "sentencing hearing" requiring allocution under R.C. 2929.19(A) and Crim.R. 32(A)(1) | Jackson: Yes — must be allowed to speak before sentence imposed | State: No — court is imposing an already-existing sentence; allocution not required | Held: Yes — revocation hearing is a sentencing hearing and allocution is required |
| Whether failure to afford allocution requires resentencing | Jackson: Error requires resentencing absent invited or harmless error | State: Error was not established / not applicable | Held: Resentencing required unless error is invited or harmless; here error was not harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000) (Crim.R. 32 and R.C. 2929.19 require opportunity for allocution at sentencing)
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (2004) (community-control-violation hearing is a second sentencing hearing)
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (2004) (refers to community-control-violation hearing as a sentencing proceeding)
- State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374 (2016) (reaffirming that post-revocation hearing requires compliance with sentencing statutes)