2021 Ohio 2719
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellant Clayton L. Lenneman pled guilty to possession of a deadly weapon while under detention in violation of R.C. 2923.131(A), a second-degree felony.
- The trial court initially mis-sentenced Lenneman and later held a resentencing hearing on November 20, 2020.
- At resentencing the parties jointly recommended an indefinite prison term of 3 to 4.5 years to run consecutively to Lenneman's existing incarceration; the trial court imposed that agreed sentence.
- Lenneman appealed, arguing the consecutive, indefinite sentence violated Ohio law and his federal and state due-process rights.
- The Twelfth District reviewed whether the jointly recommended consecutive sentence was reviewable and whether it was authorized by law.
- The court affirmed, holding the jointly recommended, consecutive sentence was authorized by law and therefore not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in imposing a jointly recommended, consecutive indefinite sentence | State: The jointly recommended sentence was lawful and not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Lenneman: The consecutive indefinite sentence violated Ohio law and deprived him of due process | Court: Affirmed — sentence was jointly recommended, imposed by the court, and authorized by law (thus not reviewable) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (jointly recommended sentences not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) if authorized by law)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (discussing standards of appellate review for felony sentencing)
- State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (2020) (R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is the proper standard; review not available under that subsection for sentences challenged only under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)