State v. Mellott
2017 Ohio 7545
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Rocco Mellott pled guilty to (1) third-degree felony domestic violence and (2) fifth-degree felony theft in two Wayne County cases.
- After a presentence investigation, the trial court sentenced Mellott to 36 months for domestic violence and 6 months for theft, ordered to run consecutively.
- At sentencing the judge noted the seriousness of the victim’s injuries, Mellott’s two prior domestic-violence convictions, separate victims, and perceived lack of remorse.
- The presentence investigation report was not included in the appellate record.
- The sentencing entry included boilerplate language finding consecutive sentences “necessary to protect the public” and “not disproportionate,” but did not state any of the mandatory statutory subsection findings.
- Mellott appealed, arguing (1) the domestic-violence maximum sentence was improper and (2) the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maximum sentence for domestic violence was improper | Mellott: sentence was excessive; record lacks showing he was not amenable to lesser punishment or rehabilitation | State: sentencing court relied on PSI and factors (injury seriousness, priors, lack of remorse) supporting maximum | Court: Overruled Mellott’s challenge to the maximum sentence (affirmed) — presumption of regularity because appellant failed to include PSI in record |
| Whether trial court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in imposing consecutive sentence | Mellott: none of the (a)-(c) statutory factors apply; court failed to make required findings on the record | State: sentencing entry and counsel’s statement indicated the court considered statutory factors | Held: Reversed and remanded — trial court did not make the required on-the-record R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis or include (a)-(c) findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard: may modify sentence only if record lacks statutory findings or sentence is contrary to law)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record and incorporate them into the entry; word-for-word statutory language not required but record must show required analysis)