2021 Ohio 3948
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Derrika Reid was indicted on bribery and intimidation charges arising from efforts to influence a witness; charges were later dismissed under a plea deal.
- Reid pled guilty to one count of obstructing justice (R.C. 2921.32(A)(4)), a fifth-degree felony.
- The trial court sentenced Reid to 12 months in prison and ordered that term to run consecutively to a nine-month jail term imposed after revocation of intervention-in-lieu-of-conviction (ILC) in a prior case.
- Reid challenged the 12-month sentence as contrary to law and excessive; the State defended the prison term but acknowledged defects in the consecutive-sentence findings.
- The appellate court held the 12-month prison term itself was lawful (within statutory range and permissible because Reid had a prior felony and committed the offense while under sanction), but concluded the consecutive ordering was plain error because statutory exceptions to the default concurrent rule did not authorize a prison term to run consecutively to local incarceration.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an amended judgment entry reflecting concurrent terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reid’s 12-month prison sentence was contrary to law or excessive | Sentence lawful; within statutory range | Any prison sentence is contrary to law / excessive | 12-month term is lawful: within R.C. 2929.14(A)(5) and prison permissible where offender previously convicted of a felony and committed offense while under sanction |
| Whether the 12-month prison term could be ordered consecutively to the nine-month local jail term from the revoked ILC | Court did not make required consecutive-sentence findings; remand could supply findings | Consecutive ordering unlawful | Consecutive order was contrary to law and plain error: R.C. 2929.41 generally requires concurrent terms and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) permits consecutive prison terms only as between prison terms (not a prison term consecutive to local incarceration); remand for amended entry to reflect concurrent terms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (adopts R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard for appellate sentence review)
- State v. Polus, 145 Ohio St.3d 266 (interpreting R.C. 2929.41(A) general rule requiring concurrent sentences)
- State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214 (trial court lacks statutory authority to order CBCF/community-control placement to run consecutively to a prison term)
- State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215 (same principle: courts may not impose community-control/CBCF sanctions to run consecutively to prison terms)