State v. Lowe
2017 Ohio 27
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Dale Lowe pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property (fifth-degree felony) for accepting and selling a diamond brooch valued at $2,640 that he knew was stolen.
- The brooch and other items were taken from a home where Lowe had worked for ~18 months; Lowe admitted stealing items and selling them to jewelers and pawn shops.
- PSI and hearing revealed Lowe has a long criminal history (multiple adult prison terms for arson, burglary, tampering with evidence, drug-related offenses; juvenile convictions; prior probation).
- At sentencing Lowe acknowledged a cocaine addiction, apologized, and expressed intent to pay restitution; a homeowner described emotional loss and the theft of heirloom items.
- Trial court imposed the maximum 12-month prison term and $6,319 restitution.
- Lowe appealed, arguing the sentence was unsupported by the record and procedurally deficient (no statutory findings, no stated reasons, no advisement of appeal rights).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence lacked required statutory findings | State: journal entry reflects consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 | Lowe: court did not verbally cite statutes or make specific findings at hearing | Court: Journal entry shows the court considered the statutes; verbal omission is not dispositive; sentence not contrary to law |
| Whether maximum sentence was supported by the record | State: facts (victim harm, trust relationship, offender history) support maximum | Lowe: court gave no reasons at hearing; summary sentencing was inadequate | Court: record (PSI, victim impact, criminal history) supports serious and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12; maximum is supported |
| Whether court failed to advise of appellate rights per Crim.R. 32(B)(2) | State: not raised as dispositive; journal and procedural posture suffice | Lowe: court failed to advise him of right to appeal after sentencing | Court: failure to advise is not reversible here; defendant filed timely appeal, and advisement requirement is not constitutionally required after a guilty plea |
| Whether judge’s summary handling of sentencing warrants reversal | State: only statutory grounds (contrary to law or unsupported by record) allow reversal | Lowe: judge acted cavalierly and has history of summary maximums; process was inadequate | Court: under Marcum only the two statutory grounds permit reversal; neither is met, so sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate relief from felony sentence limited to sentences contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
- State v. Leopard, 194 Ohio App.3d 500 (2d Dist. 2011) (trial court’s journal entry can confirm consideration of sentencing statutes even if not cited at hearing)
- State v. Borchers, 101 Ohio App.3d 157 (2d Dist. 1995) (court not constitutionally required to advise defendant of appeal rights after guilty plea)