State v. Pruitt
2021 Ohio 3793
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Quan’nita R. Pruitt was indicted on two counts of third-degree felony failure to comply with a police officer (R.C. 2921.331) based on two high-speed, reckless flight incidents on September 10, 2020 (Warren and Cortland), after police activated lights and sirens.
- Pruitt abandoned her vehicle and fled on foot before arrest; the state nolled one count as part of a plea deal and Pruitt pled guilty to the remaining count.
- The trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and, after considering the PSI, victim impact statements, and the sentencing statutes (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12), imposed a 36-month prison term.
- At sentencing the court referenced that Pruitt had prior criminal convictions and also mentioned two prior failure-to-comply matters that had been no-billed by a grand jury.
- Pruitt appealed, raising two errors: (1) the trial court considered her conduct as two offenses when sentencing, and (2) the court improperly relied on the no-billed failure-to-comply matters in imposing sentence. The Eleventh District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pruitt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court treated the conduct as two separate offenses when sentencing (merger/duplicative consideration) | Court properly sentenced on one conviction and may consider that the offender engaged officers in pursuit twice as relevant conduct | Court impermissibly counted the two incidents as two offenses when imposing sentence | The court sentenced on a single count; it noted two pursuits but did not convict twice—no error. |
| Whether the court improperly considered prior no-billed failure-to-comply charges in sentencing | Any reference to no-billed matters did not control the sentence; PSI and numerous valid convictions supported the term | Court elevated no-billed indictments to convictions and relied on them to aggravate sentence | Defense did not object at sentencing nor argue plain error; even if mention was improper, the record contains ample other valid sentencing bases—no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (affirming limits on appellate reweighing of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St.2d 112 (addressing preservation of alleged trial errors for appeal)
- State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (warning that plain-error review is to be used sparingly to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (establishing the standard for plain-error notice)