State v. Jarmon
2020 Ohio 101
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- October 4, 2016: Gang-related drive-by shooting; two children injured. Defendant Justin Jarmon fired multiple shots from a vehicle.
- November 16, 2017: Jarmon pled guilty to four counts of attempted murder and related offenses, including two five-year firearm (drive-by) specifications.
- December 21, 2017: Trial court sentenced Jarmon to 35 years, which included two consecutive five-year drive-by specifications.
- On direct appeal this court held the multiple five-year specifications violated R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(c)(iii) because the shots constituted the same act/transaction and remanded to vacate one five-year specification.
- January 24, 2019: Trial court issued a journal entry merging/vacating one five-year specification and recalculated the sentence to 30 years without a resentencing hearing and without Jarmon present.
- Jarmon appealed, arguing the court violated Crim.R. 43(A) and his constitutional right to be present at every critical stage, including resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing without the defendant physically present violated Crim.R. 43(A) and the right to be present | State argued the remand entry effectuated the appellate mandate and any absence did not prejudice Jarmon (harmless) | Jarmon argued he had a fundamental right to be physically present at resentencing under Crim.R. 43(A) and Wilks | Court: Resentencing is a critical stage; failing to hold a hearing with Jarmon present was error, but the absence was harmless here |
| Whether a Crim.R. 43(A) violation requires automatic reversal or is subject to harmless-error review | State maintained the error was harmless and did not require vacation because sentence was reduced per mandate | Jarmon contended any absence at a critical stage requires correction | Court: Violation not structural; can be harmless error. Because Jarmon showed no prejudice and his sentence was reduced, the error was harmless and the judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilks, 114 N.E.3d 1092 (Ohio 2018) (defendant has right to be present at critical stages; absence does not automatically mandate reversal and is evaluated under the Snyder standard)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (presence required only to the extent absence would thwart a fair and just hearing)