2022 Ohio 4020
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In Dec. 2020 Mathis and four codefendants were indicted on aggravated riot charges; Mathis pled guilty to one count under a plea agreement that the state would dismiss remaining charges and recommend concurrent service with a 2017 sentence (court not bound).
- The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a PSI, and later reviewed Mathis’s extensive criminal history (9th felony, 21 misdemeanors, prior violent convictions including involuntary manslaughter and domestic violence) and a high-risk ORAS assessment.
- The PSI and record show a jailhouse fight involving five inmates that injured multiple correction officers; details of individual culpability in the fight are sparse in the record.
- At sentencing the court imposed 24 months for aggravated riot and ordered that term to run consecutively to Mathis’s 2017 sentence, expressly finding consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public or punish, not disproportionate, and that Mathis committed the offense while in custody and his criminal history warranted consecutive terms under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- Mathis appealed only the consecutive-sentences decision, arguing his role was less serious than co-defendants and that imposing consecutive sentences on him alone was disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record supports imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Mathis: his conduct in the jail fight was less serious than co-defendants’, so consecutive sentences are disproportionate | State: trial court made the statutory findings on the record and in the entry; Mathis has an extensive violent criminal history; record lacks facts to compare culpability with co-defendants | Court affirmed: the trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in the entry; record does not clearly and convincingly show those findings are unsupported; proportionality properly considered current and past conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-493, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (explains R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requirements for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make required consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them in the judgment entry)