State v. Price
2020 Ohio 220
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- In April 2018 deputies found Bradley Price asleep in a running truck; he refused field sobriety and breath tests and was arrested.
- A LEADS printout showed Price’s driver’s license was under a "pretrial suspension" from Sandusky Municipal Court and listed prior OVI convictions; Price was charged with two OVI counts and driving under a pretrial license suspension (R.C. 4510.11).
- At trial a jury acquitted Price of the OVI charges but convicted him of driving under suspension; the court imposed 180 days (150 suspended) plus fines and costs.
- The LEADS report was admitted at trial; it was signed, sealed, and certified and a deputy corroborated its authenticity.
- On appeal Price raised five assignments of error (including denial of allocution, LEADS authentication, sufficiency/manifest weight, Crim.R. 29/charge specificity, and sentencing).
- The Sixth District affirmed the conviction for driving under suspension, reversed the sentence for failure to afford allocution, vacated sentencing, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Price) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to allocution before sentencing | No invited or harmless error; routine sentencing | Trial court denied Price the opportunity to speak; counsel unavailable/ill | Court: Error to sentence without offering allocution; not invited or harmless — sentence vacated and remanded |
| Admissibility/authentication of LEADS report | LEADS is a public record; the exhibit was signed, sealed, certified and a deputy authenticated it | LEADS not properly authenticated; officer untrained and did not generate the report | Court: LEADS properly self‑authenticated and admissible under Evid.R. 803(8)/901(B)(7) — no abuse of discretion |
| Sentence (30 days asserted error) | State supported jail term | Price challenged length of incarceration | Moot on appeal because sentencing was vacated for allocution error; remand for resentencing |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight and Crim.R. 29/charge specificity | LEADS showed a pretrial suspension under R.C. 4510.11(A); evidence (including video statements) supported operation during suspension; charge wording was cured by "pretrial suspension" notation | Evidence insufficient; LEADS inadmissible; record didn’t specify subsection (A) or (B); verdict against manifest weight; Crim.R. 29 should have been granted | Court: Sufficient evidence to support conviction; denial of Crim.R. 29 proper; conviction not against manifest weight; charge description (pretrial suspension) cured omission |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352 (allocution requires opportunity for defendant to speak before sentencing)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (sentencing without asking defendant to speak requires resentencing unless error invited or harmless)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (appellate review of evidentiary rulings and prejudice)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest weight review)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest weight standard elaboration)
- Braxton v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 134 (final judgment must describe the crime or cite the statute)