State v. Price
2016 Ohio 591
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Christian Price was convicted in an earlier case (Price I) of rape, kidnapping, and telecommunications harassment; this court reversed the rape and kidnapping convictions and ordered a new trial due to prosecutorial comment that impermissibly highlighted Price’s post-arrest silence.
- Price was later tried in a separate indictment (Price II) for kidnapping (for purpose of sexual activity) and related charges arising from later events; the jury convicted him of kidnapping for sexual activity but acquitted him of other charged counts.
- The trial court initially found a sexually violent predator specification true based on Price’s earlier convictions and imposed a mandatory 10 years-to-life consecutive to the earlier six-year sentence; this court affirmed that conviction on appeal (Price II).
- After Price I retrial resulted in acquittals, Price successfully sought a new trial on the sexually violent predator specification in Price II; at bench retrial he was found not guilty of the specification.
- The trial court then resentenced Price to seven years on the kidnapping conviction and labeled him a Tier II sexual offender; Price appealed his seven-year sentence.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the record did not show the trial court considered the statutory sentencing purposes and factors (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencing bias for reliance on acquitted conduct | Court may consider acquitted/unindicted acts in sentencing; not per se error | Judge was biased, relying on conduct underlying acquitted offenses and comments showing belief in guilt | Overruled — sentence not based solely on acquitted conduct; record shows focus on conduct in this kidnapping conviction |
| Vindictiveness after successful appeal | No presumption of vindictiveness because sentence after appeal (seven years) was lower than prior 10-to-life; defendant must show actual vindictiveness | Price argues harsher treatment compared to prior case shows vindictiveness for appealing/acquittal | Overruled — Pearce presumption inapplicable; no enhanced sentence and both sentences within statutory ranges |
| Failure to consider statutory sentencing factors (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | Trial court satisfied the statute by discussion of facts and sentencing rationale | Price argues court did not state it considered purposes and factors, and journal entry lacked the required statement | Sustained — record and journal entry contain no indication the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (presumption of vindictiveness when increased sentence follows successful appeal; rebuttable by objective record reasons)
- Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (1984) (clarifies Pearce; requires objective information to rebut vindictiveness presumption)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (limits Pearce presumption to situations with reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness)
- State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (Ohio: sentencing judge may consider facts from trial, including acquitted conduct, without per se error)