State v. Reid
2016 Ohio 7475
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In April 2015 Brandon Reid was indicted on multiple counts arising from controlled buys and a search of his Cleveland home that recovered heroin, firearms, cash, and a phone; charges included drug trafficking (with schoolyard specification) and having a weapon while under disability.
- In May 2015 Reid pled guilty to an amended Count 1 (trafficking in heroin, schoolyard spec.) and Count 4 (having a weapon while under disability); the court ordered a PSI, TASC evaluation, and CBCF interview before sentencing.
- At sentencing the court imposed an 18-month prison term on the third-degree trafficking conviction and a three-year term of community control (including six months CBCF confinement to be served after the prison term) on the weapons-under-disability conviction.
- Reid appealed, arguing the court erred by imposing prison rather than community control without making required findings under R.C. 2929.13, and that the court lacked authority to make community control consecutive to a prison term.
- The court affirmed the trafficking sentence (finding the presumption of a prison term not rebutted and that the record showed consideration of sentencing statutes) but reversed and vacated the consecutive community-control portion of the weapons sentence and remanded for resentencing on that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing a prison term on schoolyard trafficking without making R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) findings | State: Presumption of prison applies for trafficking in the vicinity of a school; court properly imposed prison and considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors | Reid: Court failed to make the statutory findings required to impose prison instead of community control under R.C. 2929.13 | Court: Affirmed — presumption applied and court was not required to make the R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) findings because it found Reid did not rebut the presumption; record shows consideration of sentencing factors |
| Whether a court may order community-control sanctions to be served consecutively after a prison term | State: Court imposed community control consecutive to prison (no detailed statutory defense on record) | Reid: No statutory authority permits community control to be served consecutive to a term of imprisonment | Court: Reversed — following controlling en banc authority, a trial court lacks statutory authority to impose community control consecutive to a prison term; that portion of sentence is void and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. State, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (both findings under R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) are required to overcome presumption of prison for certain drug offenses)
- Kalish v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences and requirement that sentence be within statutory range and reflect consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (R.C. 2929.12 lists factors for assessing seriousness and recidivism)