State v. McGee
2011 Ohio 6433
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- McGee appeals from resentencing after his case was remanded for merger of allied offenses.
- Original trial court sentenced seven years on each aggravated robbery and five years on each kidnapping, totaling twelve years, consecutive to an eight-year sentence in CR-507845.
- CR-507845 involved aggravated robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, and improper handling of a firearm.
- On remand, the court merged kidnapping with aggravated robbery for sentencing purposes and imposed seven-year terms on each aggravated robbery, concurrent with each other but consecutive to CR-507845.
- McGee challenges (1) the consecutive sentence to CR-507845 and (2) the use of maximum sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentence legality to CR-507845 | McGee argues the seven-year terms should not run consecutive to CR-507845. | McGee contends the court abused discretion in ordering consecutiveness. | Consecutive terms upheld; within statutory discretion. |
| Maximum sentence compliance | McGee asserts sentences constitute maximum punishment for the offenses. | McGee contends the terms are excessive—maximum terms were imposed. | Not maximum; sentences within statutory range. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.2d 23 (2008) (two-step Kalish framework after Foster for reviewing felony sentences)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (eliminated mandatory judicial fact-finding for sentencing)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (recognizes continued validity of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 as sentencing guideposts)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing)