State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 6729
Ohio2020Background
- Randy and Carissa Jones adopted T.J., a child diagnosed with autism, ADHD, and intellectual disability; she died at age 12 of sepsis and pneumonia caused by a bacterial abscess.
- Medical examiner ruled the death a homicide based on lack of care; evidence included severe wounds, malnutrition, and gangrenous tissue.
- The Joneses were convicted at jury trial of involuntary manslaughter (and related counts); the state elected sentencing on the manslaughter count.
- Trial court sentenced each parent to ten years imprisonment (within the 3–11 year statutory range) and stated it had considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals vacated those sentences and remanded, relying on this court’s statements in State v. Marcum and conducting a review of whether the record supported the sentences under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.
- The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court asking whether R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes appellate courts to vacate or modify sentences for lack of record support under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Joneses' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permit appellate vacatur/modification when the record does not support the trial court’s consideration under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12? | No — (G)(2)(a) lists specific statutes; 2929.11/2929.12 are not among them. | Yes — Marcum’s language allows review where record fails to support sentence under 2929.11/2929.12; mere recital is insufficient. | No — (G)(2)(a) applies only to the expressly listed provisions; Marcum’s language on this point was dicta. |
| Does R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) (“otherwise contrary to law”) authorize vacatur/modification because the record fails to support a sentence under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12? | No — ordinary meaning and legislative history show (b) does not subsume a general record‑support review of 2929.11/2929.12. | Yes — appellate courts must be able to correct sentences not supported by the record under 2929.11/2929.12. | No — (b) does not equate to a freestanding standard to review whether a sentence is supported by the record under 2929.11/2929.12. |
| Did the Eighth District panel properly vacate the Joneses’ sentences by reweighing evidence and substituting its judgment under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12? | No — the panel impermissibly substituted its judgment for the trial court’s discretionary sentencing decision. | The panel lawfully found the sentences did not advance the statutory purposes and therefore were unsupported. | No — the panel erred; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit that plenary substitution; trial sentences reinstated. |
| Are the Marcum statements relied on by the Eighth District binding? | Marcum’s relevant statements were dicta and not controlling. | Marcum supports appellate review of record‑support for 2929.11/2929.12. | Marcum’s remarks on that point are dicta and do not authorize the review the Eighth District applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (held R.C. 2953.08(G) defines standards for felony‑sentencing appeals; language suggesting broad record‑support review of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 is dicta)
- State v. Wilson, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 do not require specific on‑the‑record factual findings)
- State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (same principle regarding no mandatory on‑the‑record findings under 2929.11/2929.12)
- Lynch v. Gallia Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 680 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio 1997) (statutory amendments should be presumed to change the law’s effect and operation)
- State v. Gwynne, 141 N.E.3d 169 (Ohio 2019) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (treats Marcum’s ¶23 remarks as dicta on appellate review scope)
- State v. Long, 8 N.E.3d 890 (Ohio 2014) (record must reflect specific consideration of juvenile mitigating factor when imposing life without parole)