State v. Rinehart
2020 Ohio 2796
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Devin Rinehart pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault (second-degree felony) with a firearm specification for firing a gun while driving; the bullet (by ricochet) struck victim Jewell Scott.
- The defense and prosecution jointly recommended a 5-year prison term; Rinehart pleaded guilty after the court advised him of the possible maximum penalties.
- At sentencing the trial court rejected the joint recommendation and imposed consecutive terms: 5 years on the felonious assault, a 3-year mandatory firearm specification, and an additional 3 years related to the post-release control he was serving, for a total of 11 years.
- Defense emphasized remorse, that Rinehart did not intend to strike anyone, and his mental-health diagnoses; the prosecutor joined a joint recommendation of 5 years.
- Rinehart appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) abuse of discretion in rejecting the jointly recommended sentence; and (2) error in imposing five years of mandatory post-release control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to accept the jointly recommended 5-year sentence | The State argued the court is not bound by the recommendation and properly informed Rinehart of the potential maximums | Rinehart argued the court should have honored the joint recommendation and not impose a greater sentence | Court upheld the sentence rejection: no abuse of discretion; court was not an active participant in the plea and had informed Rinehart of possible greater penalties |
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering five years of mandatory post-release control | The State conceded the five-year PRC was improper | Rinehart argued the mandatory PRC for a second-degree felony is three years, not five | Court agreed with Rinehart: the five-year PRC was improper, that portion is void; remanded for limited resentencing to impose the correct three-year PRC |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (when PRC is imposed improperly that part of the sentence is void and limited resentencing is required to impose proper PRC)
- State v. Holdcroft, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (confirms Fischer principles regarding void PRC and availability of review)
- State v. Bezak, 868 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio 2007) (limited resentencing under Bezak/Fischer is restricted to proper imposition of post-release control)