State v. Reindl
2021 Ohio 2586
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Alisia Reindl pleaded guilty in 2017 to amended theft and telecommunications fraud and was placed on five years of community control with restitution ordered.
- While on community control, Reindl committed new offenses: drug possession (CR-19-647147-A) and obstructing official business and inducing panic (CR-20-648297-A) after a relapse; two weapon-under-disability counts were dismissed as part of plea negotiations.
- The trial court revoked community control for the 2017 case and imposed an 18-month term; it also imposed concurrent terms of 6 months (drug) and 9 months (obstruction/inducing panic), but ordered the 9-month term to run consecutively to the 18-month term for an aggregate 27-month sentence.
- Reindl appealed solely arguing the record did not support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and that the court failed adequately to consider mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.
- At sentencing the court expressly stated it considered the presentence report, R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and found (1) consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public or punish, (2) consecutive sentences were not disproportionate, and (3) Reindl committed the new crimes while on community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences | Court: Made the three required findings at the hearing and incorporated them into the journal entry | Reindl: Court’s recital was perfunctory; record does not support findings; concurrency presumptive | Affirmed — court made required findings on the record and in the entry; record supports them |
| Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 (mitigating factors) | Court: Stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; sentence within statutory ranges | Reindl: Court did not adequately weigh remorse, relapse, family obligations, and other mitigating factors | Affirmed — statement of consideration suffices; presumption that court considered factors; sentence not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (explains appellate review of consecutive sentences; required findings must be in the record and sentencing entry)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (trial court need not use talismanic language when considering R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279 (2019) (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 govern individual sentences; R.C. 2929.14 and R.C. 2953.08 control appellate review of consecutive sentences)