State v. Money
2013 Ohio 4535
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Money pled guilty to eight counts of burglary, reduced by the State from second- to third-degree felonies.
- Money and accomplice LaFountain conducted a multi-state burglary spree in TN, KY, and OH; Money drove LaFountain to break in and steal items.
- Property was exchanged for narcotics; eight Clermont County residences were involved before apprehension of LaFountain and Money surrendered.
- Trial court sentenced Money to one-year terms on each count, consecutive for an aggregate eight-year sentence.
- Money appealed challenging the eight-year consecutive sentence as error.
- Appellate review applied the deferential standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine if sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether eight-year consecutive sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law | Money argues the consecutive eight-year term is misapplied. | Money contends the court erred in imposing consecutive terms beyond statutory or proportional limits. | Sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; consecutive terms properly justified and within range. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crawford, 2013-Ohio-3315 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12-088) (clarifies deferential review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Elliott, 2009-Ohio-5926 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2009-03-020) (sentence within statutory range upheld under deferential standard)
- Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (Ohio) (explains the clear and convincing standard is negative (appellate review))
- State v. A.H., 2013-Ohio-2525 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98622) (discusses standard of review under appellate scrutiny of sentencing)