State v. Midlam
2012 Ohio 6299
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Midlam was convicted for aggravated robbery in Hillsboro and sentenced to five years to be served consecutively to ten years of concurrent sentences from other jurisdictions.
- The Hillsboro offense occurred May 16, 2010, and was part of a spate of aggravated robberies in multiple states to support his addiction.
- Prior to this, Midlam pled guilty in other jurisdictions and received ten-year concurrent terms for those offenses.
- HB 86, effective September 30, 2011, amended R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requiring specific findings when imposing consecutive sentences.
- Midlam argues the trial court failed to make proper findings for consecutive sentences; the State contends the court properly applied the statute with a sentencing worksheet, and the sentence is not contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the consecutive five-year term complies with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) after HB 86 | Midlam: findings for consecutive sentences were not properly made. | Midlam: findings were made via worksheet and supported by the record. | Not contrary to law; findings supported the consecutive sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step Kalish review for felonious-sentencing questions)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (guidance on sentencing principles and statutory compliance)
- State v. Alexander, 2012-Ohio-3349 (2012) (HB 86 requires explicit findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Hines, 2010-Ohio-2749 (2010) (consecutive-sentence analysis within statutory range)
- State v. Parrish, 2012-Ohio-3153 (2012) (tense on whether court must spell out reasons on record)