State v. King
2011 Ohio 3985
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- King was convicted on three cases: CR-409062 (forgery, uttering, possession of criminal tools), CR-474651 (theft, identity fraud, possessing tools, misuse of credit cards, receiving stolen property), and CR-487580 (identity fraud, receiving stolen property, misuse of credit cards, obstructing official business).
- In May 2008, King pleaded guilty to all counts and was sentenced to aggregate terms across the three cases, running consecutively for a total of 17 years, 11 months, plus 12 months in one case and 15.5 years in another.
- On direct appeal, this court vacated the CR-409062 conviction for speedy-trial violations, remanded for resentence on certain counts in CR-474651, and affirmed other aspects, including consecutive sentences.
- In October 2010, the trial court resentenced King on the remanded counts in CR-474651 to 12 months each, with all counts to run concurrent with other cases, keeping an aggregate term of 16 years, 11 months and noting possible postrelease control.
- King appealed again, challenging allocution rights, postrelease control advisement, conformity of sentence with Saxon, consecutive-sentence findings, and court-cost handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocution right at resentencing | King was deprived of Crim.R. 32(A) allocution. | King's allocution rights must be respected; failure to address her personally was reversible. | Sustained; remanded for resentencing with proper allocution. |
| Postrelease control advisement at resentencing | Improper postrelease-control advisement at resentencing. | Trial court remedied advisement at resentencing, but remand requires proper advisement. | Remanded for proper postrelease-control advisement. |
| Conformity with Saxon on remanded counts | Court failed to completely resentence beyond remanded counts as Saxon allows. | Court complied with Saxon by re-sentencing only the specific counts; other terms unchanged. | Sustained; remand limited to the remanded counts, with appropriate resentencing. |
| Consecutive-sentence findings | Consecutive sentences warranted by findings. | No additional findings required for consecutive sentences. | Overruled; no extra findings required. |
| Court costs and waiver opportunity | Costs were not properly addressed at sentencing; waiver opportunities were not provided. | Waiver opportunity should be considered on remand. | Sustained; remanded to permit waiver of costs and to impose costs in open court. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352 (2000-Ohio-182) (allocution rights are absolute under Crim.R. 32)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000-Ohio-183) (Crim.R. 32 allocution requirements must be followed)
- State v. Norris, 8th Dist. No. 95485, 2011-Ohio-1795 (2011-Ohio-1795) (allocution applicable to resentencing)
- State v. Chambers, 8th Dist. No. 89319, 2008-Ohio-3017 (2008-Ohio-3017) (allocution and resentencing procedures in appellate context)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (rejected sentencing-package doctrine; limited remand scope)
- State v. Simmons, 2008-Ohio-1100 (2008-Ohio-1100) (remand scope for resentencing when only some counts are challenged)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (no judicial fact-finding required before imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010-Ohio-954) (costs must be addressed in open court at sentencing)