State v. Jones
2014 Ohio 29
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Darrick Jones pled guilty in three consolidated Cuyahoga County cases involving burglaries and related offenses and was originally sentenced to 32 years.
- This court (Jones I) affirmed the convictions but reversed the original sentence because the trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required for consecutive terms.
- On remand the trial court reimposed aggregate prison time, stating it would run some terms concurrently and announcing a combined term (variously described as 21 or 24 years), and explained it considered Jones’s youth and limited prior record.
- Jones appealed the resentencing, arguing the court again failed to make the statutorily required proportionality finding and failed to show consideration of R.C. 2929.11/B factors; he also argued firearm specifications should have merged.
- The state conceded the firearm-specification error; the appellate court declined to decide moot issues and remanded for resentencing because the trial court did not expressly find that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) proportionality finding required before imposing consecutive sentences | State: Trial court’s statements about seriousness and necessity show required findings | Jones: Court failed to make the explicit proportionality finding required by statute | Reversed: Record does not show the specific proportionality finding; sentence is contrary to law |
| Whether the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/B sentencing principles (proportionality/consistency) | State: Court’s remarks reflect consideration of sentencing principles | Jones: Record lacks clear demonstration that R.C. 2929.11/B were considered | Not decided on merit — remand for resentencing; court noted those factors must be considered on remand |
| Whether aggregate sentence is outside local sentencing mainstream | State: Sentence reasonable given crimes | Jones: 24-year term exceeds local practice and is excessive | Not decided — mooted by remand for proper findings |
| Whether firearm specifications in CR-555501 should have merged under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) | State: concedes error | Jones: argued specifications should merge into single term | Issue conceded by state and rendered moot by resentencing; may be corrected on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391, 754 N.E.2d 1252 (trial court’s failure to make statutorily required consecutive-sentence findings is contrary to law)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 951 N.E.2d 381 (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes; consideration can be presumed)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124 (use of sentencing-findings worksheet and documentation aids appellate review)
- State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (discussing R.C. 2953.08 appellate standard for reviewing consecutive sentences)