State v. Jones
105 N.E.3d 702
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- Randy and Carissa Jones were convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter, permitting child abuse, and endangering children after their 12‑year‑old adopted daughter (T.J.) died of polymicrobial sepsis following untreated foot wounds and other injuries.
- The trial court sentenced each defendant to ten years in prison after a lengthy sentencing hearing in which the court discussed the injuries, the defendants’ conduct, and their remorse. Neither had prior criminal records.
- On appeal the panel initially affirmed convictions but (in a reconsidered opinion, Jones II) vacated the ten‑year sentences, concluding by clear and convincing evidence the record did not support those sentences and remanding for resentencing.
- The State sought en banc review; the en banc court focused on whether State v. Marcum permits appellate review under R.C. 2953.08 to vacate or modify non‑contrary‑to‑law sentences based on whether the record supports the sentencing court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
- The en banc court held that Marcum’s reasoning authorizes appellate courts, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), to vacate or modify a felony sentence (including nonmaximum, in‑range sentences) if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence — including review of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 considerations.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Joneses' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marcum permits appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) of in‑range sentences imposed after consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Marcum allows review but only to the extent statutory grounds in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) apply; limits exist | Marcum permits appellate courts to vacate/modify non‑contrary‑to‑law sentences when record does not support them under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Yes — Marcum authorizes appellate courts to review whether the record supports sentences under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and to act if clear and convincing evidence shows it does not. |
| Whether an appeal based solely on R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 falls within R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) "contrary to law" for appealability | The statutory appealability scheme limits review; Marcum should not expand appeal rights beyond R.C. 2953.08(A) | Marcum treated R.C. 2929.11/2929.12‑only sentences as reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(G) even if not "contrary to law" in traditional sense | The court (majority) treats Marcum’s paragraph 23 as a substantive directive allowing review of such sentences under the framework of R.C. 2953.08(G); concurrence notes statutory ambiguity but agrees review is permitted. |
| Scope of appellate review — whether appellate courts may re‑weigh sentencing factors or must defer to trial court discretion | Appellate review is deferential; courts should not substitute their judgment or independently re‑weigh factors | Jones II panel had independently weighed factors and reversed sentences as unsupported | The en banc majority rejects unfettered de novo re‑weighing but affirms that appellate courts may review the record (including R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) and vacate/modify only upon clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence. |
| Application to these sentences (ten‑year terms) — whether record clearly and convincingly fails to support them | The State argued the trial court thoroughly considered factors and the sentences were supported by the record and trial discretion | Joneses argued the sentences did not advance the goals of R.C. 2929.11 and were excessive given remorse, lack of criminal history, and low future risk | The merit panel (applying the en banc standard) found by clear and convincing evidence the record did not support ten‑year sentences and vacated them, remanding for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (held appellate courts may modify/vacate a sentence only if they clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the sentence or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law, and stated that review can encompass R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations)
- State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 2016) (reiterated that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits reversal only when sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (discussed appellate standards of review for felony sentencing prior to Marcum)
- State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2017) (recognized sentencing judges’ broad discretion within statutory ranges and discussed appellate deference)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (explained the concept of dicta and binding precedent)