State v. Miller
2019 Ohio 2290
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2019Background
- LCNA executed a controlled buy on Nov. 14, 2017; Miller sold an ounce of methamphetamine for $900 and agents later executed a search warrant at his residence.
- Search yielded cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, alprazolam, methadone, firearms, and ammunition.
- Miller was indicted on 14 counts (12 felonies), with forfeiture and multiple major drug offender specifications; he pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree trafficking in cocaine and one count of second-degree aggravated trafficking.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 10 years on the trafficking count and 2 years on the aggravated trafficking count, to run consecutively (aggregate 12 years).
- Miller appealed, arguing the sentence was contrary to law for (1) failing properly to weigh mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12 and (2) improperly imposing mandatory and consecutive sentences.
- The trial court explained it considered the presentence report, letters, counsel’s statements, and the R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, emphasizing the large quantity of drugs, Miller’s extensive criminal history, probation/bond violations, and risk of recidivism.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was contrary to law because the court ignored or discounted mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12 | The court considered statutory purposes and factors and properly exercised sentencing discretion | The court failed to give effect to mitigating factors (addiction, remorse, no prior drug dealing) and improperly relied on drug quantities inherent to the offense | Court affirmed: trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; sentence within statutory range and not contrary to law |
| Whether consecutive sentences were improper | Consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public, proportionate, and supported by statutory findings (course of conduct; seriousness; criminal history) | Consecutive 12-year aggregate sentence is excessive/mandatory/contrary to law | Court affirmed: trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record and entry; findings supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 do not require judicial fact-finding; courts must consider statutory sentencing purposes and factors)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review standard for felony sentences; vacatur/modification only if record clearly and convincingly does not support findings or sentence is contrary to law)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings on the record or sentence is contrary to law; no word-for-word statutory recitation required if findings are discernible)