State v. Purk
2017 Ohio 986
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Donald L. Purk II received Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC) for a 2014 fourth‑degree felony (theft of drugs) and later pleaded guilty to a 2016 fifth‑degree felony (possession of heroin); both cases were placed on community control.
- Purk repeatedly failed to report to probation, overdosed multiple times, used heroin, and was charged with possession while under community control.
- The trial court revoked community control in both cases and sentenced Purk to the maximum prison terms available: 18 months (fourth‑degree) and 12 months (fifth‑degree).
- The court ordered the two terms to be served consecutively, finding consecutive sentences necessary to protect the public, not disproportionate, that one offense was committed while on sanction, and that Purk’s criminal history supported consecutive terms.
- Purk appealed, arguing the consecutive sentences were incorrect because his conduct harmed only himself and not the public.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the record supported the statutory findings and that Purk posed a risk of future harm to the public.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences | Trial court: consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, not disproportionate, offense committed while under sanction, and history warrants consecutive terms | Purk: his conduct harmed only himself; consecutive sentences unnecessary and disproportionate | Affirmed — record supports R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; appellate court cannot clearly and convincingly find the record fails to support those findings |
| Whether sentencing court needed additional findings or reasons for consecutive sentences | State: statutory findings recited in court and entries satisfy requirements | Purk: argued court’s reasoning insufficient to justify consecutive terms | Affirmed — court made required findings on the record and in entries; discretionary sentencing within statutory range allowed |
| Whether prisoner’s substance‑use history makes him only a danger to self (relevance to public‑protection finding) | State: theft from medical facility, risk assessment high for recidivism, prior convictions and continued drug use demonstrate public risk | Purk: primary harm directed at himself (addiction, overdoses) | Affirmed — court reasonably found public danger based on theft from medical center, recidivism risk, criminal history, and conduct while on supervision |
| Standard of appellate review for consecutive sentences | State: R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs; reversal only if record clearly and convincingly does not support findings or sentence contrary to law | Purk: urged court to find abuse or insufficient justification | Held: Apply R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); appellant failed to meet high clear‑and‑convincing threshold to overturn sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio 2013) (trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range and is not required to give reasons for maximum sentence)
- State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when sentencing)
- State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (discusses sentencing statutes and court’s obligation to consider statutory policies)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Withrow, 64 N.E.3d 553 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (appellate court may not reverse consecutive sentence unless it clearly and convincingly finds the record fails to support statutory findings)