State v. Rolland
2013 Ohio 2950
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On May 11, 2011, Kevin Rolland was involved in a fatal car crash; he was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide under R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) and enhanced to a second-degree felony under R.C. 2903.06(B)(3) based on a prior juvenile adjudication for a traffic-related homicide.
- Rolland had previously (1997, as a juvenile) admitted to vehicular homicide that resulted in two deaths.
- On January 10, 2012, Rolland pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide.
- On March 16, 2012, the trial court sentenced Rolland to a definite seven-year prison term (within the second-degree felony range), lifetime license suspension, and three years post-release control.
- Rolland appealed raising (1) constitutional challenge to R.C. 2901.08 as applied to enhance adult sentencing using juvenile adjudications, (2) argument that R.C. 2901.08 was not intended to apply to aggravated vehicular homicide, (3) alleged violation of allocution requirements (R.C. 2929.19(A)/Crim.R. 32), and (4) alleged sentencing entry and post-release control notification defects (R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of R.C. 2901.08 as an enhancement (Eighth Amendment) | State: statute validly treats juvenile adjudications as convictions for enhancement | Rolland: applying juvenile adjudications to enhance adult sentence is cruel and unusual punishment (invoking Roper/Graham/Miller) | Court: statute constitutional; Roper/Graham/Miller inapplicable because those limit juvenile punishments and Rolland was an adult when convicted of the instant offense |
| Whether R.C. 2901.08 was intended to apply to serious offenses like aggravated vehicular homicide | State: enhancement statute applies as written | Rolland: statute was not meant to enhance serious adult charges with juvenile adjudications | Court: guilty plea waived non-constitutional challenge; assignment of error waived and meritless on appeal |
| Allocution compliance (R.C. 2929.19(A) / Crim.R.32) | State: defendant was afforded full allocution | Rolland: court failed to ask him if he had anything to say before sentencing | Court: defendant and counsel were given opportunity; defendant spoke and accepted responsibility; allocution requirement satisfied |
| Mandatory prison term and post-release control notice (R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)) | State: court orally notified defendant of mandatory term and post-release control; judgment entry referenced post-release control | Rolland: court failed to state "mandatory" in entry and fully inform re: post-release control | Court: oral notifications at hearing sufficed; omission of the word "mandatory" in entry did not render sentence void; post-release control properly imposed and explained |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile death-penalty prohibition) (held death penalty unconstitutional for offenses committed as juveniles)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juvenile life-without-parole prohibition for nonhomicide offenses)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole unconstitutional for juveniles)
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (convictions entered pursuant to statutes that bar prosecution may be vacated despite guilty plea)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (plea does not waive certain constitutional defects that bar prosecution)
- State v. Wilson, 58 Ohio St.2d 52 (1979) (constitutional challenges that affect state's ability to prosecute survive a guilty plea)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (failure to raise statutory constitutionality at trial generally waives the issue on appeal)
- State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 (2008) (Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual punishment analysis and proportionality principles)