2021 Ohio 3995
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- James Everett Moore was indicted for aggravated murder, murder, and aggravated robbery with firearm specifications for a November 18, 2017 killing during an armed robbery; he pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter (first-degree felony) in a plea agreement that dismissed remaining counts.
- At the original January 25, 2019 sentencing the trial court imposed an 11-year mandatory sentence; this court remanded for resentencing on direct appeal.
- At the January 5, 2021 resentencing, the trial court again imposed an 11-year (now nonmandatory) term and stated it was adopting the rationale from the 2019 hearing; Moore raised no objection at resentencing.
- Moore appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the 11-year sentence is contrary to law under R.C. 2929.11(B) because it was harsher than his codefendant’s and lacked aggravating factors; (2) the court improperly considered dismissed charges and thereby violated due process.
- The Sixth District affirmed, holding appellate reweighing of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors is barred by State v. Jones and that consideration of dismissed/unadjudicated allegations at sentencing does not, by itself, establish reversible due-process bias when the sentence falls within the statutory range.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Moore's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 11-year sentence is "contrary to law" under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) because it allegedly conflicts with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Sentence is lawful and appropriate given record and sentencing factors | Sentence is inconsistent with codefendant’s and unsupported by aggravating evidence | Affirmed — appellate court cannot vacate based on its own view that R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 support is lacking (Jones) |
| Whether the trial court’s consideration of dismissed charges (and references to potential exposure) violated Moore’s due-process rights | The court may consider dismissed/unadjudicated allegations among many factors; sentence is within statutory range | Court’s remarks showed bias and reliance on dismissed charges, requiring reversal | Affirmed — consideration of such allegations is permissible and not reversible when sentence is within statutory range and record includes other sentencing factors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (Ohio 2020) (appellate courts may not reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 or vacate sentences as "contrary to law" on that basis)
- State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1991) (consideration of evidence relating to dismissed charges at sentencing is not reversible error)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (trial court need not make special findings to impose maximum within statutory range)
- State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 (Ohio 2008) (sentence within statutory range is valid)