State v. Jones
2018 Ohio 2033
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Tadara D. Jones was indicted on multiple offenses, pleaded guilty to two counts of fourth-degree felony trafficking in cocaine in July 2016; other charges were dismissed in exchange for the plea.
- The trial court accepted the plea and in September 2016 sentenced Jones to 18 months on each count, ordered to be served consecutively for a total of 36 months.
- Jones appealed the sentence raising two errors: (1) the court failed to personally address him and afford allocution before imposing sentence (Crim.R. 32), and (2) the court imposed consecutive sentences without making the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The state conceded error. The appellate court reviewed whether the failure to permit allocution was invited or harmless and whether the trial court made the requisite consecutive-sentence findings.
- The Sixth District reversed and remanded for resentencing: (a) to permit allocution and (b) to reconsider consecutive sentences and place the required findings on the record if it again imposes them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court violate Crim.R. 32 by failing to address the defendant and allow allocution before sentencing? | Jones: court did not personally ask him or allow him to speak prior to imposing sentence. | State: (conceded error) no invited or harmless error shown. | Reversed — trial court failed to afford allocution; remand for allocution. |
| Were consecutive sentences lawful where the court did not state the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record? | Jones: consecutive terms were imposed without the statutorily required findings. | State: (conceded error) trial court did not make the mandated findings. | Reversed — remand for the trial court to consider consecutive sentences and state the required findings if imposing them. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352 (2000) (Crim.R. 32 allocution is a defendant’s last opportunity to speak; courts must painstakingly adhere to the rule)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000) (sentencing without allocution requires resentencing unless error is invited or harmless)
- State ex rel. Soukup v. Celebrezze, 83 Ohio St.3d 549 (1998) (definition of invited error)