State v. McFadden
2017 Ohio 6905
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Richard McFadden pled guilty to two fourth-degree felony counts of domestic violence (against his wife and his mother‑in‑law), one fifth‑degree felony count of obstructing official business, and one misdemeanor count of resisting arrest; four other counts were dismissed in the plea deal.
- The facts included punching his wife (whom he believed to be pregnant), cutting his mother‑in‑law with a knife after forcing entry, threatening arresting officers, resisting arrest, and a struggle with a jail officer during a video arraignment.
- The trial court reviewed a PSI (which reported an Ohio Risk Assessment score characterized as "low"), heard allocution, and expressly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 sentencing factors.
- The court sentenced McFadden to 18 months for each domestic‑violence count, 12 months for obstructing official business, and 60 days for resisting arrest; ordered the three felonies (two DV + obstructing) to be served consecutively for an aggregate 48‑month term.
- McFadden appealed only the aggregate sentence, arguing the court relied on inaccurate evidence, ignored the PSI risk score, overstated certain conduct, and improperly weighed lack of military service as increasing recidivism risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McFadden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for sentencing | Appellate review requires showing sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law or record lacks support | McFadden contends trial court abused discretion and record does not support consecutive 48‑month term | Court: Review governed by Marcum standard; appellant must show by clear and convincing evidence record fails to support sentence |
| Whether trial court improperly relied on inaccurate evidence or ignored low risk score | Court reviewed PSI and other evidence, may reject PSI risk recommendation; credibility determinations are for trial court | McFadden says PSI showed a low Ohio Risk Assessment score and court should have given it controlling weight; challenges specific factual characterizations | Court: Record supports trial court’s factual findings; court acknowledged the low score but reasonably discounted it given other evidence and credibility issues |
| Whether trial court improperly characterized physical interactions (e.g., "assault" vs "wrestled") | Court treated jail incident as obstruction/active resistance (defendant pleaded to obstructing official business) and relied on the record of officer injury | McFadden argues the court exaggerated or mischaracterized the conduct | Court: Semantics do not change that conduct supported the conviction and sentencing findings; record supports characterization used for sentencing |
| Whether consecutive sentences were unsupported or disproportionate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court found consecutive terms necessary to protect public or punish, not disproportionate, and made alternative findings under (b) and (c) | McFadden argues his prior record was only misdemeanors and he had not been to prison, so consecutive terms were unnecessary | Court: The record (domestic violence while on probation, knife injury, threats to officers, officer injury) supports consecutive findings; McFadden did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the record fails to support consecutive sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (appellate review standard for felony sentencing; reversal only if sentence clearly and convincingly not supported by the record)