State v. Morris
2016 Ohio 7614
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- William Morris, a registered sex offender, pled guilty in 2013 to failure to verify his address and received two years of community control (CR-13-577354), with the court warning a 24‑month prison term would follow a violation.
- Morris later pled guilty to a 2014 failure-to-verify charge (CR-14-588516) and a 2015 escape charge for failing to comply with postrelease-control reporting (CR-15-597117); the court sentenced him to 12 months for each.
- The trial court found Morris violated his 2013 community control and imposed the previously-disclosed 24‑month term, ordering all three sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate 4‑year prison term plus up to three years postrelease control.
- Morris appealed, arguing (1) he was denied his Crim.R. 32(A) right of allocution before sentencing on the community-control violation and (2) the court imposed consecutive sentences without adequate statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The appellate court held allocution was required at the community-control sentencing under State v. Heinz and Crim.R. 32(A), vacated and remanded the community-control sentence for resentencing with allocution, but affirmed the consecutive sentences as to the two later convictions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Morris's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant has a right of allocution at sentencing for a community-control violation | Heinz distinguishes community control from probation; Crim.R.32(A) applies and the state can appear; no separate allocution right is waived by prior allocution | Morris: Crim.R.32(A) grants an absolute right to allocution at any sentencing; he was not asked at the community-control sentencing | Court: Under Heinz and Crim.R.32(A)(1), allocution is required at community-control sentencing; denial was error; remand for resentencing with allocution |
| Whether prior allocution at the original sentencing satisfies allocution requirement at community-control resentencing | The court argued it could “incorporate” prior arguments and that allocution already occurred | Morris: Prior allocution did not cover the community-control proceeding; court expressly refused allocution for the PV hearing | Held: Prior opportunity did not satisfy Crim.R.32(A) for the new sentencing; error not harmless; remand required |
| Whether trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to impose consecutive sentences for the two later convictions | State: Court made necessary findings on the record and in the journal entry; proportionality can be discerned from remarks | Morris: Court failed to make distinct proportionality findings as to seriousness and danger; record insufficient to support consecutive terms for technical reporting violations | Held: Remarks and journal entry satisfy Bonnell; appellate court cannot clearly and convincingly find the record lacks support; consecutive sentences for the two later convictions affirmed |
| Whether overall consecutive order (including community-control term) is affected by allocution error | State: Consecutive order stands because findings were made; allocution issue is separate | Morris: Because community-control sentence was part of consecutive aggregate, remand needed to reconsider consecutivity | Held: Community-control sentence vacated and remanded for allocution and resentencing; consecutive terms on the two later convictions remain affirmed; challenge to consecutive order including vacated term rendered moot in part |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 2016) (community-control violation hearings are formal sentencing proceedings to which Crim.R.32 and state participation rights apply)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C.2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences; findings need not be talismanic if discernible)
- State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 2000) (Crim.R.32 confers an absolute right of allocution and the court must ask the defendant if he wishes to speak)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (Ohio 2000) (failure to afford allocution requires resentencing unless error is invited or harmless)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard under R.C.2953.08(G)(2): appellate court may vacate consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds the record does not support required findings)