2020 Ohio 6822
Ohio2020Background
- Appellant Kinney received a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole and challenged Ohio's R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), which limits appellate review for certain murder convictions.
- Kinney contends the statute is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution because it is procedurally unusual and effectively denies appellate review of severe punishments.
- The Seventh District Court of Appeals issued a decision that provoked review; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the authority of State v. Patrick.
- The opinion excerpted contains a dissent by Justice Fischer, who argues R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is not cruel and unusual punishment and that appellate review is not constitutionally required for adult life-without-parole sentences.
- The disagreement centers on whether the Eighth Amendment (and the Ohio counterpart) governs procedural bars to appellate review or only substantive methods/levels of punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment | Kinney: statute is procedurally unusual and thus cruel because it forecloses appellate review of life-without-parole sentences | State: Eighth Amendment governs punishment methods/levels, not procedure; legislature may limit appeals | Majority: Case reversed/remanded per State v. Patrick (statute does not preclude other avenues); Dissent: would hold statute constitutional |
| Whether the Eighth Amendment/Ohio Const. requires appellate review for adult life-without-parole sentences | Kinney: additional procedures (including appellate review) required for severe punishments | State: No federal or Ohio constitutional right to appellate review; appellate procedure is statutory/policy choice | Held (dissent): No constitutional right to appeal; additional appellate procedures not required for adult life-without-parole sentences |
| Whether procedural unusualness alone makes a statute cruel and unusual | Kinney: anomaly among states shows statute is unusual and thus violates Eighth Amendment | State: Procedural anomaly does not convert a statutory rule into cruel and unusual punishment | Dissent: Procedural uniqueness does not render the statute unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (Eighth Amendment focuses on methods of punishment)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (upheld life without parole for adult offender)
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (death penalty requires individualized sentencing procedures)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (juvenile life-without-parole requires special procedures)
- Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (no constitutional right to appellate review)
- McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (states decide whether appeals are allowed)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio: no constitutional right to appeal)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (policy decisions about statutes rest with legislature)
- Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (historical treatment of cruel and unusual punishment)
- Holt v. State, 107 Ohio St. 307 (Ohio discussion of cruel and unusual punishment)