State v. Martinez
2012 Ohio 3750
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Martinez convicted by jury of possession of cocaine (count one), possession of marijuana (count two), and possession of marijuana (count three) following a 2004 trial; he was sentenced to 15 years total (concurrent counts two and three, consecutive to count one).
- Appellate proceedings: this Court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing under Foster; resentencing occurred in 2011 with same 15-year term.
- Judge Kelbley recused in 2011; Judge Markus presided on remand and Martinez challenged the process in a motion to dismiss.
- Martinez argued the 5-year delay before resentencing violated Crim.R. 32 and his Sixth Amendment rights; he asked for dismissal or vacatur.
- The appellate court consolidated Martinez’s appeals and addressed three assignments of error: (I) sentence was abusive and unconstitutional; (II) delay prejudiced him; (III) failure to resentence after recusal was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15-year sentence was an abuse of discretion | Martinez contends the sentence is excessive given lack of prior convictions and rehabilitation. | State argues factors under R.C. 2929.11-12 justify seriousness and duration. | Overruled; sentence supported by record evidence of drug scale and conduct. |
| Whether the delay in resentencing prejudiced Martinez | Delay violated Crim.R. 32 and his speedy-trial rights, constituting prejudice. | Delay administrative; Martinez could not be released due to mandatory terms; no prejudice shown. | Overruled; no prejudice shown given mandatory minimum and lack of release. |
| Whether trial court should have resentenced after Judge Kelbley’s recusal | Visiting judge should have addressed basis for conflict and potential impact on resentencing. | Discretion resides in the visiting judge; no authority requiring re-sentencing by Markus. | Overruled; discretionary recusal not requiring re-resentencing or inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (Sixth Amendment and sentencing framework adjustments; no requirement for consecutive-fact findings exist after Foster; sentencing upon review under Kalish framework)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (Post-Foster guidance; courts still consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors when sentencing)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (Standard of review for felony sentences; plurality framework referenced in Kalish opinion)
- State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (2007-Ohio-767) (Discusses the clear-and-convincing standard of review for certain appeals under 2953.08)
- State v. Rhodes, 2006-Ohio-2401 (2006-Ohio-2401) (Support for appellate review of sentencing under statutory factors)
- State v. Tyson, 2005-Ohio-1082 (2005-Ohio-1082) (Cited regarding review standards and consideration of sentencing factors)