State v. Jarrett
2013 Ohio 1663
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jarrett pled guilty to eight offenses for fraud and forgery; while on bond awaiting sentencing, he committed seven additional offenses including grand theft and identity-related crimes.
- Eight new offenses occurred across seven different cases; total offenses reflect continuing criminal conduct while under review.
- Jarrett has 16 prior felony convictions, contributing to a finding of incorrigibility when imposing consecutive sentences.
- The trial court sentenced to consecutive terms totaling eight years six months, concluding that a single term could not reflect the seriousness of the conduct.
- Jarrett challenges the sentence as not sufficiently serious to justify consecutive terms, arguing the total monetary harm ($22,590) is not extraordinary.
- Ohio law allows consecutive sentencing under RC 2929.14(C)(4) if certain statutory findings are met and the sentence is not disproportionate to the conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the consecutive-sentence findings under RC 2929.14(C)(4) supported? | Jarrett argues the record does not support the required findings. | Jarrett contends the court properly found necessity and proportionality based on conduct and history. | Yes; the findings are supported and within the statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goins, 8th Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263 (Ohio 2013) (no need to state reasons for findings under current statute)
- State v. Blackburn, 8th Dist. Nos. 97811 and 97812, 2012-Ohio-4590 (Ohio 2012) (no requirement to articulate reasons for RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings)
- State v. Alexander, 1st Dist. Nos. C-110828 and C-110829, 2012-Ohio-3349 (Ohio 2012) (permissible to rely on statutory findings without detailing rationale)
- State v. Wells, 2d Dist. No. 2012-CA-12, 2012-Ohio-5529 (Ohio 2012) (consecutive-sentence review under RC 2929.14(C)(4))
- State v. McKenzie, 3d Dist. No. 15-12-07, 2012-Ohio-6117 (Ohio 2012) (application of concurrent/consecutive-sentence standards)
- State v. Midlam, 4th Dist. No. 12CA2, 2012-Ohio-6299 (Ohio 2012) (analysis of seriousness and history in consecutive sentences)
- State v. Patterson, 5th Dist. No. CT2012-0029, 2012-Ohio-5600 (Ohio 2012) (consideration of offender’s conduct and statements in sentencing)
- State v. Nowlin, 6th Dist. No. CT2012-0015, 2012-Ohio-4923 (Ohio 2012) (review of proportionality for consecutive terms)
- State v. Galindo-Barjas, 7th Dist. No. 12 MA 37, 2013-Ohio-431 (Ohio 2013) (improper to require reasons for findings beyond statutory requirements)