State v. Patterson
2022 Ohio 1167
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In Dec. 2018 a grand jury indicted Thomas C. Patterson on multiple drug and related charges; in April 2019 he pleaded guilty to several counts pursuant to a plea agreement.
- In May 2019 the trial court sentenced Patterson to an aggregate term (including 8 years on an amended count), imposed a mandatory $7,500 drug fine, post-release control, license suspension, and court costs.
- On direct appeal this court concluded defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to avoid the mandatory fine and remanded solely for a hearing to determine indigency and whether the mandatory fine should be imposed.
- On remand (Mar. 16, 2021) the trial court held a resentencing/indigency hearing without Patterson being physically present and without a waiver; the court found Patterson indigent and waived the $7,500 fine.
- Patterson appealed, arguing the trial court violated Crim.R. 43(A) by resentencing him in absentia; the State (appellee) asserted any Rule 43 error was harmless because Patterson suffered no prejudice and actually benefited.
- The appellate court held the Crim.R. 43(A) violation was harmless error (no prejudice) and affirmed the trial court’s resentencing outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing Patterson without his physical presence (and without a waiver) violated Crim.R. 43(A) and requires reversal | Any violation of Rule 43 here is harmless because Patterson suffered no prejudice and the court’s action benefited him (waived $7,500 fine) | Crim.R. 43(A) requires the defendant’s presence at resentencing; holding a resentencing hearing without Patterson violated that right and was improper | The court acknowledged the Rule 43(A) violation but found it harmless error because Patterson did not demonstrate prejudice; affirmed the resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (a defendant has a correlative right to be present at every stage of the trial)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (the presence of a defendant is required only to the extent absence would frustrate a fair hearing)