State v. Price, 2016 Ohio 8417

Background

Appellant Earl Price was indicted for aggravated murder with firearm and repeat-violent-offender specifications and for having a weapon while under a disability; he initially pled not guilty.
Retained counsel litigated pretrial motions over ~5 months; on the day jury selection was to begin Price asked to replace counsel citing "professional mistrust."
The trial court denied the request for substitution/continuance; Price then accepted the State's plea offer, pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter (reduced from aggravated murder) while specifications and the weapons-under-disability charge remained.
Sentencing: 11 years for voluntary manslaughter (maximum), 3 years on the firearm spec, 3 years on the repeat-violent-offender spec, and 3 years for weapons while under disability, ordered to run consecutively for a total of 20 years.
Price appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) court erred in denying motion to withdraw counsel/continuance; (2) court failed to make required findings before imposing consecutive sentences; (3) court failed to make statutory findings before imposing the repeat-violent-offender enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance/substitution of retained counsel	Court should enforce prompt administration; counsel was competent and the request appeared untimely/delaying	Price argued request was timely and in good faith because he believed counsel overlooked pertinent evidence and lacked belief in his innocence	Denial was not an abuse of discretion: request came on day of trial, Price had retained counsel and had not secured new counsel, and he later stated satisfaction with counsel at plea hearing
Whether court failed to make required findings at sentencing before imposing consecutive sentences	Court made required findings at the sentencing hearing that consecutive terms were necessary and not disproportionate	Price argued the court did not expressly find consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to seriousness and danger to public	Affirmed: sentencing transcript shows court found harm "great and unusual," that one term would not reflect seriousness, and that criminal history required protection of public — satisfying R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing
Whether court was required to make R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iv),(v) findings before imposing repeat-violent-offender specification penalty	State: judicial factfinding under those subsections is not required post-Foster and related Ohio Supreme Court decisions	Price argued the court needed to make the statutory findings (inadequacy of ordinary term, recidivism and seriousness factors) before imposing the enhancement	Affirmed: under Foster and subsequent Ohio precedent, the judicial factfinding requirements in those subsections were excised; the court need not make those findings before imposing the repeat-violent-offender enhancement

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (trial-court denial of substitution reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (consecutive-sentence findings must be made at sentencing hearing and incorporated into entry)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (struck statutory factfinding requirements affecting certain sentence enhancements)
State v. Hunter, 123 Ohio St.3d 164 (post-Foster discussion reinforcing elimination of certain judicial factfinding requirements)
Adams v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (abuse-of-discretion standard and discussion of trial-court attitude)
United States v. Jennings, 83 F.3d 145 (balancing defendant’s counsel choice against public interest in prompt administration)
Wilson v. Mintzes, 761 F.2d 275 (where a retained defendant’s choice of counsel rests with defendant rather than court)