State v. Jones
2014 Ohio 3740
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Delrico Jones pled guilty to two counts of felonious assault (shootings of Shawn and William Walker) and a one-year firearm specification as to Count 1; a firearm specification on Count 2 was nolled.
- Factual summary at plea: Jones returned to the Walkers’ residence with others and shots were fired; Jones shot Shawn in the leg and an accomplice shot William in the arm; a matching firearm was recovered.
- At sentencing the trial court initially imposed consecutive terms totaling 13 years, later reduced to an aggregate 10 years, and ordered $50,000 restitution to William (payment deferred until release).
- William testified at sentencing that his medical bills were "up over 100 some thousand dollars" but produced no documentary support; defense objected to the restitution amount.
- Defense did not object to consecutive sentencing at the hearing; appellate review proceeded on plain-error grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were lawful under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court’s remarks show it considered seriousness and punishment and would have made the required findings if asked | Trial court failed to make the specific statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) on the record | Reversed and remanded for resentencing; trial court must make and journalize the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings |
| Whether $50,000 restitution to William was supported and procedurally proper | Victim’s testimony about ongoing medical bills supports restitution; trial court can rely on victim testimony | Amount was disputed by defense and there was no documentary evidence; statutory requirement for a restitution hearing upon dispute was not met | Reversed in part and remanded for an evidentiary restitution hearing per R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lalain v. Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (Ohio 2013) (trial court must conduct a restitution hearing if victim, offender, or survivor disputes the amount)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)