2019 Ohio 5325
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Gregory L. Richards was indicted after a woman he gave a baggie of suspected heroin to lost consciousness and later died; coroner listed cause of death as acute fentanyl intoxication.
- Richards pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and trafficking in heroin; remaining counts were nolled.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 6 years for involuntary manslaughter and 12 months for trafficking, ordered to run consecutively for a total 7-year term.
- Richards did not object to consecutive sentences at sentencing and appealed, arguing the trial court failed on the record to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) "not disproportionate" (proportionality) finding required for consecutive terms.
- The trial court’s oral statements at sentencing described the offenses as "separate and distinguishable harms," that "no single prison sentence... would adequately punish the offender or protect the public," and the written judgment entry expressly stated consecutive sentences were "not disproportionate."
- The Tenth District reviewed for plain error (because no objection at sentencing) and affirmed, finding the transcript and entry together show the required analysis and findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). | The trial court made the necessary findings and the judgment entry contains the required "not disproportionate" language; the oral record similarly shows proportionality analysis. | Richards contends the court failed on the record at sentencing to make the proportionality ("not disproportionate") finding required for consecutive sentences. | Affirmed. The court’s oral statements (separate/distinguishable harms; no single sentence adequate) and the written entry satisfy R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); no plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. State, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error doctrine should be applied with utmost caution)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make required consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the entry; reasons need not be stated word for word)
- Sergent v. Ohio, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (absent an order, multiple terms run concurrently)
- State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (plain-error test requires showing that, but for the error, the outcome would have been different)