State v. Jones
2013 Ohio 4820
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Two victims, Dovon Williams and Arbrie Smith, were murdered during an October 16, 2011 confrontation in Springfield, Ohio.
- Jones pulled a handgun and killed Smith, then chased Williams and shot him dead; prior beatings by Williams were known to Jones.
- Indicted January 23, 2012 for two counts aggravated murder with firearm specifications and one count weapon under disability; Jones pleaded not guilty.
- Trial occurred July 30–August 3, 2012; jury found Jones guilty on all counts; sentenced August 9, 2012 to life without parole for each aggravated murder count and three years for the weapon-under-disability count.
- Jones requested self-representation during competency proceedings; the court allowed representation by co-counsel and ordered a competency evaluation; on appeal, issues concern jury instruction, sentencing review, consecutive-sentencing findings, and court costs/fees.
- The appellate court reversed in part and remanded for (1) findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences and (2) handling of court costs and attorney fees, while affirming other aspects of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the “gist of the offense” instruction plain error in aggravated murder murder instructions. | Jones argues the gist instruction confused the requirement of specific intent to kill. | State contends the instruction, read with other charges, conveyed proper intent requirements. | Not plain error; instructions viewed in context provided adequate intent guidance. |
| Whether the life-without-parole sentences are reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). | Jones asserts general review rights apply; supplement argues Long allows review for juveniles. | State argues R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) limits review and Porterfield forecloses review here. | Limited review under 2953.08(D)(3) precludes evidentiary review; second assignment overruled. |
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed with required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). | Record lacks required findings to justify consecutive terms. | State concedes missing findings; proper procedure requires remand for findings. | Remanded to make the requisite findings before imposing consecutive sentences. |
| Whether the court erred by not orally notifying Jones at sentencing about court costs and attorney fees. | Error established; remand for Jones to seek waiver of costs/fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 74 Ohio St.3d 381 (1996) (limits of gist-of-the-offense instruction when defining purpose in murder)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (severs mandatory consecutive-sentencing findings; constitutional concerns addressed)
- State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005) (sentencing for aggravated murder generally not reviewable under 2953.08)
- State v. Hollingsworth, 143 Ohio App.3d 562 (2001) (aggravated murder sentencing treated differently; appellate review limited)