State v. Price
2017 Ohio 533
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Christian Price was convicted in separate cases: Price I (rape and kidnapping; 6-year sentence) and Price II (kidnapping for sexual activity with sexual-motivation and sexually-violent-predator specifications; originally sentenced to 10-to-life consecutive to Price I).
- Price I convictions were later reversed and Price was retried and acquitted on the Price I charges; that led the state to concede Price was entitled to a new trial on the sexually-violent-predator specification in Price II.
- After bench retrial on the specification in Price II, the court found Price not guilty of the sexually-violent-predator specification; the court resentenced Price to seven years on the first-degree kidnapping conviction (with sexual-motivation specification) and designated him a Tier II offender.
- This court previously reversed that seven-year sentence in Price III because the trial court’s sentencing entry and record did not show consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; the case was remanded for resentencing.
- On remand the trial court expressly discussed R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors, found certain seriousness factors (victim’s young age, abuse of relationship) and recidivism factors (indictment for similar conduct, lack of remorse) outweighed favorable factors, and reimposed the seven-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is contrary to law for failing to follow R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 | State: trial court complied on remand and considered required sentencing purposes and factors | Price: trial court misinterpreted guidelines and misapplied seriousness/recidivism factors, so sentence is contrary to law | Affirmed — court found trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and sentence within statutory range; not contrary to law |
| Whether resentencing was biased or vindictive | State: no bias or vindictiveness; sentence within statutory range and less than previous term | Price: judge was biased/vindictive at resentencing, violating due process | Affirmed — no evidence of bias or vindictiveness; prior appellate conclusions control and trial court acted properly |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences when R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 considered)
- State v. Price, 60 N.E.3d 481 (8th Dist. 2016) (Price III) (remand for resentencing where record did not show consideration of sentencing statutes)