2018 Ohio 1376
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2005 Daniel G. Payton pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and rape and received a jointly recommended sentence: 20 years to life for aggravated murder, nine years for rape (consecutive), to run consecutive to a prior 30-year term.
- Payton did not appeal the 2005 judgment.
- In 2016 Payton filed a Verified Motion to Correct Sentence, conceding his convictions and pleas but arguing the sentence was "contrary to law" because it was not an agreed sentence and because the entry lacked statutory language/findings for mandatory, more-than-minimum, and consecutive terms and failed to notify him of appeal rights.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the sentence was a jointly recommended, agreed sentence that had been knowingly and voluntarily accepted and that the court had in any event made the necessary findings.
- Payton appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing and by refusing to let him present mitigating evidence or challenge coercion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Payton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of aggravated-murder sentence | Sentence is not subject to review because statute excludes aggravated murder from R.C. 2953.08 review | Seeks correction of sentence for aggravated murder | Aggravated-murder sentence not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) — motion properly denied |
| Whether rape sentence is reviewable as non-agreed/contrary to law | Sentence was jointly recommended, authorized by law, and imposed — not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Argues sentence was "open," lacked required statutory consecutive/mandatory-term findings and appeal-notice language, so contrary to law | Rape sentence was jointly recommended and authorized by law; not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) |
| Whether consecutive/mandatory-term findings required for agreed sentence | Jointly recommended sentences need not carry trial court’s statutory consecutive-sentence findings to be "authorized by law" | Contends court failed to make required findings under R.C. 2929.13/2929.14 | Court need not make the findings for jointly recommended consecutive sentences; alternatively, relevant findings were made |
| Requirement to notify defendant of right to appeal agreed sentence | R.C. 2953.08 confers appeal rights but does not require trial-court notice in the entry | Argues sentencing entry lacked required notice of right to appeal sentence contrary to law | No statutory requirement that court notify defendant in the entry; omission not grounds to correct sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-2696, 69 N.E.3d 627 (Ohio 2016) (agreed nonmandatory consecutive sentences do not require trial-court findings to be "authorized by law")
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (definition of "authorized by law" requires compliance with mandatory sentencing provisions)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1980) (omitted transcript portions result in presumption of validity of lower-court proceedings on appeal)
- State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (Ohio 1986) (failure to raise an apparent issue at trial constitutes waiver)