State v. Rose
2018 Ohio 4888
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Adam M. Rose was indicted on multiple counts including domestic violence, aggravated menacing, felonious assault, abduction, petty theft, companion animal prohibitions, and kidnapping; he pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to a subset of offenses (including third-degree abduction and fifth-degree felonies).
- Rose had prior convictions (robbery and felonious assault) and was on probation when he committed the charged offenses.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed: 36 months for abduction (3rd deg.), consecutive 12-month terms for two fifth-degree felonies (total 60 months), and concurrent six-month jail terms on related misdemeanors.
- Rose appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence for a felony and (2) the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences.
- The trial court relied on the presentence investigation, victim impact statements, testimony at the sentencing hearing, and considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors in imposing sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly imposed maximum sentence for felony convictions | State: Court had discretion under R.C. 2929.13(B) and considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; record supports sentence | Rose: Sentence (including maximum on felony) was improper / trial court failed to properly consider statutory factors | Court: Affirmed — record shows trial court considered required statutes; sentence within statutory range and not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed | State: Trial court made required findings at hearing (necessity to protect public/punish, non-disproportionality, and at least one §2929.14(C)(4) predicate) | Rose: Consecutive terms improper; court failed to make/find required statutory findings | Court: Affirmed — trial court made the statutory findings on the record (applicable predicates: offender on probation, course of conduct/harm, and criminal history) and incorporated them into the entry or record supports correction if clerical |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences; clear-and-convincing basis to modify/vacate)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate into entry; no need to state reasons)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (severed portions of R.C. requiring judicial fact-finding; restored trial court discretion within statutory ranges)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (post-Foster appellate review framework for sentences; courts must still consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12)