State v. Likens
2021 Ohio 2380
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellant Zachary T. Likens pled guilty to two counts of first-degree felony rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)).
- At plea hearing (July 28, 2020) the trial court immediately imposed a jointly recommended sentence: two consecutive mandatory 11-year prison terms.
- Likens appealed, claiming the sentence violated his due process rights because the trial court failed to account for his age, acceptance of responsibility, and lack of prior criminal history (arguing the court did not follow R.C. 2929.11/2929.12).
- The court of appeals explained that felony sentences are reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), not for abuse of discretion, and that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law.
- The panel found the agreed sentence complied with mandatory sentencing provisions (including allied-offense and consecutive-sentence statutes) and therefore was "authorized by law."
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and overruled Likens’ assignment of error.
Issues
| Issue | Likens' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence violated due process by failing to follow R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and consider mitigating factors | Trial court failed to consider age, acceptance of responsibility, and no prior record; therefore sentence was improper | Sentence was jointly recommended and, because it comports with mandatory provisions, is authorized by law and not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Court held the sentence was a lawful jointly recommended sentence, not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (discusses appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences and clarifies abuse-of-discretion is not the applicable standard)
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (jointly recommended sentence is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) if authorized by law)
- State v. Watson, 126 Ohio App.3d 316 (12th Dist. 1998) (appellate court is not required to search the record to support appellant's arguments)