State v. Roberts
2018 Ohio 4885
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Aaron J. Roberts pled guilty to one count of improperly discharging a firearm at/into a habitation (second-degree felony) and one count of having weapons under disability (third-degree felony); other counts and a firearm specification were dismissed.
- The offenses arose from a September 22, 2015 incident where occupants of an SUV fired multiple shots into residences, discarded firearms during a police chase, and led police on a high-speed pursuit.
- Roberts had an extensive criminal history, was on bond for a prior weapons offense when the instant offenses occurred, and scored high on the Ohio Risk Assessment Survey.
- Trial court sentenced Roberts to the statutory maximums: 8 years (second-degree) and 36 months (third-degree), to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to his sentence in an earlier, unrelated Clark County case.
- Roberts appealed, arguing (1) the imposition of maximum sentences was unsupported by the record and contrary to law, and (2) consecutive sentencing was unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maximum statutory sentences were supported and lawful | State: Trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, PSI, crime seriousness, and recidivism — supports maximums | Roberts: Record lacks victim impact evidence, court failed to credit remorse and cooperation; maximums excessive | Court: Affirmed — record supports consideration of statutory factors and sentencing not contrary to law |
| Whether consecutive sentences (to prior sentence) were supported | State: Court made R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (necessity to protect public; not disproportionate; offenses committed while awaiting trial; history of criminal conduct) | Roberts: Consecutive sentences unnecessary; prior offense occurred in same time frame and history is not so severe | Court: Affirmed — the trial court made required findings at hearing and entered them in the judgment; record supports those findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (recognizing appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and defining clear-and-convincing review)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (severing statutory provisions that required specific findings for maximum sentences)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into the entry; no obligation to state reasons)
- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (permitting sentencing courts to consider a broad range of information beyond conviction evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)