2019 Ohio 238
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Timothy Jones was convicted by jury (Aug. 3, 2012) of two counts of aggravated murder with firearm specifications and one count of having weapons while under disability; originally sentenced to consecutive life-without-parole terms plus firearm specifications.
- This court (Jones I) reversed in part (Nov. 1, 2013) and remanded for the trial court to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing consecutive sentences and to allow motion on costs/fees.
- Trial court issued a supplemental entry (Nov. 6, 2013) purporting to make the required findings but did not conduct a resentencing hearing; the supplemental entry was insufficient.
- The trial court eventually held a resentencing hearing on Jan. 29, 2018, made the statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record, and re-imposed the same consecutive life-without-parole terms; no court costs/attorney fees were imposed then.
- Jones pursued habeas and related federal litigation during the intervening years; his federal challenges were dismissed and appeals denied as untimely or successive.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, concluding no non-frivolous issues; Jones filed pro se claims raising ineffective assistance at resentencing and speedy-resentencing violations—court rejected them and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: trial court made required findings at 2018 resentencing | Jones: consecutive life terms disproportionate (implicitly) | Court: Findings were made; consecutive sentences lawful |
| Whether court-imposed costs/attorney fees at resentencing were erroneous | State: no fees ordered at resentencing | Jones: challenged imposition of costs/fees | Court: No costs/fees imposed; no error |
| Ineffective assistance of resentencing counsel for not moving to dismiss for speedy-resentencing delay | State: motion would be meritless; no prejudice | Jones: 4+ year delay violated speedy rights; counsel deficient for not moving; prejudice (anxiety, impaired defenses) | Court: Counsel not ineffective because any motion lacked merit and Jones suffered no prejudice (would not have been released) |
| Violation of speedy-resentencing rights (Sixth/Fourteenth & Ohio Const.) | Jones: lengthy, unexplained 4+ year delay; entitles him to discharge | State: delay did not prejudice Jones; Crim.R.32(A) not applicable to resentencing | Court: Delay was an inexcusable administrative lapse but not prejudicial because Jones remained incarcerated and could not have been released; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial guarantee discussed)
- State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio adoption of Strickland principles)
- State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274 (discussion of Ohio speedy-trial statutory scheme)