State v. Jones
2013 Ohio 3141
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Donovan D. Jones pleaded guilty in two Cuyahoga County cases: (1) drug trafficking (fifth-degree felony) in CR-561081; (2) amended robbery count in CR-562160; other counts were nolled.
- In CR-561081 the trial court sentenced Jones to the maximum 12-month prison term for the fifth-degree felony.
- In CR-562160 the court imposed two years of community control upon Jones’s release from the drug case.
- Jones appealed, arguing the court erred by imposing prison instead of community control under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(c) and failed to adequately consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and proportionality.
- The trial court cited Jones’s extensive criminal history, recent robbery conviction (within two years), bond violation, high offender-risk score, and stated it considered the statutory sentencing factors.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding Jones was ineligible for the community-control presumption and the record showed the court considered required statutory factors; proportionality was not preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to seek DRC community-control options under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(c) before imposing prison | State: trial court properly sentenced given defendant’s ineligibility and facts | Jones: court should have contacted Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction and deferred to obtain community-control options | Held: Jones was ineligible for the presumption (prior recent felony/robbery and bond violation); no DRC request required |
| Whether trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors | State: court stated it considered all principles, purposes, seriousness and recidivism factors | Jones: court did not adequately articulate consideration of seriousness/consistency | Held: record shows the court engaged with statutory factors and made required findings |
| Whether 12-month maximum sentence was disproportionate | State: sentence commensurate given criminal history and risk assessment | Jones: sentence excessive compared to similar offenders | Held: proportionality claim not preserved—defense did not raise or present comparative evidence at sentencing |
| Whether sentence is otherwise contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) | State: sentence lawful and within statutory limits | Jones: contested legal compliance with R.C. 2929.13 procedures | Held: sentence not contrary to law; appellate standard not abuse-of-discretion but clear-and-convincing review, which was not met by appellant |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (trial court must consider statutory sentencing factors; exact phrasing not required so long as record shows required analysis)