State v. McCoy
2013 Ohio 4647
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Shawn L. McCoy was indicted on charges arising from a scheme of encoding physical credit cards with stolen account numbers; police recovered numerous recoded cards and gift-card purchases totaling $1,060.
- McCoy pleaded guilty to two fifth-degree felonies: misuse of a credit card and receiving stolen property.
- At sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive seven-month prison terms (aggregate 14 months) after rejecting community control because two community-based programs refused admission due to McCoy’s jail misconduct.
- McCoy did not object at sentencing and appealed, arguing the court was required by former R.C. 2929.13 to impose community control unless the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (DRC) supplied available programs, and that counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
- The appellate court applied the deferential R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard and concluded prison was permissible because the court obtained evidence programs would not accept McCoy; however, the court found the trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings to impose consecutive sentences and remanded for resentencing on that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was required to impose community control under former R.C. 2929.13(B) | State: Court complied by confirming facilities would not accept McCoy, so prison was permissible. | McCoy: Court violated R.C. 2929.13 by contacting facilities directly rather than requesting DRC, so community control should have been imposed. | Court held prison was proper; contacting facilities directly satisfied the purpose and DRC-level refusal was unnecessary here. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prison in lieu of community control | State: No prejudice because prison was permissible on the record. | McCoy: Failure to object constituted ineffective assistance and regular error. | Court held no ineffective assistance—no prejudice shown because sentence would not have differed. |
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed | State: Consecutive terms are justified by public protection/punishment and other factors. | McCoy: Trial court did not make required statutory findings for consecutive terms. | Court held consecutive sentence improperly imposed—trial court failed to make required findings; remand for proper findings. |
| Standard of appellate review of felony sentences | State: Rely on statutory standard limiting appellate interference. | McCoy: (implicit) appellate review should correct statutory noncompliance. | Court applied R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) deferential standard—appellate court may act only if record clearly and convincingly does not support required findings or sentence is contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (adopted plain-error framework for criminal appeals)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (defines plain error standard)