State v. Marcum
2020 Ohio 3962
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Marcum was charged with identity fraud, two counts of forgery, and two counts of passing bad checks; he pled guilty to identity fraud and two forgeries under a plea agreement that recommended community control and restitution.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed three concurrent five-year community-control terms and required Marcum to enter and complete a CBCF program.
- The court notified Marcum that if he violated community control it could impose prison terms: 18 months (Count 1), 12 months (Count 2), and 12 months (Count 5), to be served consecutively for a total reserved 42 months.
- Marcum appealed, arguing the court erred by warning of consecutive reserved prison terms without making the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required for consecutive sentences.
- The State conceded the trial court made no R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing but argued those findings are required only when consecutive prison terms are actually imposed after a violation.
- The appellate court held the notice satisfied R.C. 2929.19(B)(4); R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings are required only if and when the court revokes community control and actually imposes consecutive prison terms, so the sentence was not contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notifying a defendant of consecutive reserved prison terms when imposing concurrent community-control sanctions requires R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the original sentencing | State: findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are required only when consecutive prison terms are actually imposed, not when notifying of potential reserved terms | Marcum: notification of consecutive reserved prison terms without statutory findings renders the sentence contrary to law | Court: Notification of possible consecutive prison terms satisfied R.C. 2929.19(B)(4); R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings are required only if/when consecutive prison terms are imposed after revocation; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (clarifies appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences and use of clear-and-convincing standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
- State v. McPherson, 142 Ohio App.3d 274 (explains the three sanctioning options after a community-control violation)
- State v. Duncan, 61 N.E.3d 61 (explains that a specific prison term given as notice at community-control sentencing may never be ordered and that notice does not equate to imposition)