State v. Ohio
2019 Ohio 790
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1993 Jermaine Thomas kidnapped and raped a woman at gunpoint; he was indicted in 2013 and convicted by a jury of rape and kidnapping with a firearm specification.
- Thomas was originally sentenced under pre-S.B.2 law to an indefinite 8–25 years plus a consecutive 3-year firearm term; he argued on appeal he was entitled to be sentenced under H.B. 86 (the law in effect at his 2014 sentencing), which provides shorter, definite terms.
- This court (Thomas I) and the Ohio Supreme Court (Thomas II) held he was entitled to sentencing under H.B. 86; multiple resentencings followed because of procedural defects and claims of vindictiveness, resulting in several appeals.
- After two voided resentencings and one reversal for presumed vindictiveness (Thomas IV), the trial court on remand imposed concurrent 8-year terms (plus 3 years on the firearm spec) and five years of postrelease control.
- Thomas appealed this fourth sentencing, raising (1) that the 8-year concurrent sentence is contrary to law / unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and (2) that imposition of 5 years postrelease control violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 8-year concurrent sentence is contrary to law or unsupported under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Trial court considered required statutes and factors; sentence within statutory range and justified by seriousness of offense | Sentence is excessive, not justified by record (Thomas's limited post-1993 misconduct, rehabilitation, age at offense) | Affirmed: record shows consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; 8-year term not contrary to law and review under R.C. 2953.08 does not compel reversal. |
| Whether five years of postrelease control violates the Ex Post Facto Clause for an offense committed pre-S.B.2 | Because Thomas was sentenced under H.B. 86, postrelease control is mandatory and does not increase punishment compared to pre-S.B.2 parole exposure | Imposition of postrelease control increases punishment relative to law at time of offense and thus violates Ex Post Facto | Affirmed: postrelease control under H.B. 86 does not constitute greater punishment than pre-S.B.2 parole exposure for first-degree felonies; Ex Post Facto claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas, 70 N.E.3d 496 (Ohio 2016) (Ohio Supreme Court affirmed benefit of H.B. 86 shorter sentencing ranges)
- Marcum v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- Woods v. Telb, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio 2000) (background on S.B. 2 and creation of postrelease control)
- Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1925) (Ex Post Facto Clause bars statutes that increase punishment after commission of offense)