State v. Kouns
2017 Ohio 7497
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael P. Kouns was indicted on 21 drug-related counts; pleaded guilty to five counts (pattern of corrupt activity; complicity to trafficking in heroin; complicity to trafficking in cocaine; possession of chemicals for manufacturing drugs; cultivation of marijuana) and four forfeiture specifications pursuant to a plea agreement.
- In exchange the State dismissed 16 other counts and agreed to recommend no more than a 14-year sentence.
- Pre-sentence materials and sentencing memorandum described Kouns as having an addiction history and a subordinate role in a drug operation run by co-defendant Richard Lawless; Kouns requested a sentence of ~5 years, similar to co-defendants.
- At sentencing the State recommended up to 14 years despite Kouns’ cooperation and mitigation arguments; the trial court imposed individual terms within statutory ranges that aggregated to 12 years (some concurrent, one consecutive).
- Kouns appealed, arguing the 12-year aggregate sentence was disproportionate compared to co-defendants’ sentences and violated the Eighth Amendment and Ohio Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate 12-year sentence is cruel and unusual/disproportionate | State: sentence is within statutory limits and appropriate given offense seriousness; falls within plea cap agreed to by Kouns | Kouns: 12-year consecutive sentence is grossly disproportionate, especially compared to ~5-year sentences of co-defendants and given his lesser role and addiction | Court: Affirmed. Individual sentences were within statutory ranges and not grossly disproportionate; proportionality review focuses on individual sentences, not aggregate term; defendant failed to produce comparative evidence about co-defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 (1999) (Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality; forbids only extreme sentences grossly disproportionate to the crime)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (plurality/concurring discussion that strict proportionality is not required)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (three-part test for proportionality review)
- State v. Chaffin, 30 Ohio St.2d 13 (1972) (aggregate consecutive sentences do not violate constitutional proportionality if individual terms are not grossly disproportionate)
- State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 (2008) (proportionality review examines individual sentences rather than cumulative impact)