State v. Lough
2021 Ohio 230
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Angel M. Lough pled guilty to five counts of second-degree aggravated trafficking and one count of fifth-degree aggravated possession; plea agreement included dismissal of additional charges and the State’s recommendation of an aggregate 10-year sentence.
- At sentencing the court imposed a 12‑month term for the possession count and five-year terms on each trafficking count, structured as two concurrent groups of five-year terms served consecutively to produce a 10‑year minimum and, under Reagan‑Tokes, a 12.5‑year maximum (indefinite) sentence.
- The court explained consecutive terms were necessary, noting trafficking’s role in the drug‑addiction crisis and describing the harm as "virtually catastrophic." The PSI showed juvenile adjudications, some adult convictions, prior probation violations, and a history of untreated addiction.
- Appellate counsel initially filed an Anders brief; the court remanded to correct clerical errors by a nunc pro tunc entry, then appointed new counsel who raised two assignments of error.
- Lough challenged (1) the court’s statutory findings supporting partially consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and (2) the court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 (adequacy of consideration of sentencing principles/factors).
- The Second District affirmed: it found the record supported the consecutive‑sentence findings and held it lacked authority to reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations on appeal under Ohio Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing partially consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court made required findings; trafficking caused great/unusual harm (fostered addiction, risk of death); consecutive terms protect public and punish | Record does not clearly and convincingly support great/unusual harm; offenses nonviolent; no adult felony record; addiction and sales were to a confidential informant | Affirmed — findings supported. Court credited nature/extent of trafficking, repeated sales over months, intent to distribute; alternative statutory basis (offenses committed while awaiting indictment) also noted |
| Whether sentence fails to comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 (adequacy of consideration) | Court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and PSI; under State v. Jones appellate courts cannot substitute their judgment on these factors | Sentence inconsistent with sentences for similar offenders; trial court inadequately applied seriousness/recidivism factors | Affirmed — appellate review foreclosed by Jones; in any event record showed consideration of statutory factors and no clear/convincing failure to apply them |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires appointed counsel to file brief asserting lack of nonfrivolous issues and permits defendant to file pro se brief)