State v. Redd
2012 Ohio 5417
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Redd was indicted in Sept. 2010 on 12 counts (4 felonious assault, 8 endangering children).
- In Jan. 2012, he pled guilty to two counts of endangering children (third-degree felonies); other counts were nolled.
- At sentencing, the court imposed two 30-month prison terms consecutive for the two offenses, plus a 2-year post-release control plan and 3 years of discretionary postrelease control; aggregate 60 months in prison.
- Redd objected to the length of the sentence and the imposition of community control after prison.
- The appellate court found error in the split-sentence for one offense and in the failure to make mandatory consecutive-sentence findings, vacated the sentence, and remanded for de novo sentencing.
- Convictions were affirmed, but the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether split sentence for a single offense violates due process/double jeopardy | Redd argues the prison term plus community control for one offense violates double jeopardy. | The state concedes error in imposing prison plus community control for the same offense. | merit—split sentence improper; sentence vacated and remanded |
| whether consecutive-sentence findings were properly made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) after HB 86 | Redd contends mandatory HB 86 findings were not on the record. | State argues findings can be inferred from record facts. | merit—mandatory findings not made; sentence vacated and remanded for new sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jacobs, 189 Ohio App.3d 283, 2010-Ohio-4010 (8th Dist. 2010) (prohibits concurrent prison and community control for same offense; requires proper sentencing structure)
- State v. Blackburn, 2012-Ohio-4590 (8th Dist. 2012) (HB 86 requires explicit consecutive-sentence findings; SB 2 framework previously required on-record reasoning)
- State v. Johnson, 2012-Ohio-2508 (8th Dist. 2012) (meaningful review of sentencing; supports conduct of review under R.C. 2953.08(G))
- State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3rd Dist. 2012) (discusses standards for reviewing sentencing under HB 86)