State v. Rubalcava
2016 Ohio 8171
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- March 7, 2013: police executed a search warrant at Antonio Rubalcava’s residence and seized drug packaging paraphernalia plus two baggies found on his person containing small amounts of heroin and cocaine.
- September 4, 2013: Rubalcava was indicted on multiple fifth-degree felony counts for possession and trafficking of heroin and possession of cocaine. A capias issued after he failed to appear.
- February 2016: Rubalcava was arrested on the capias, entered not guilty at arraignment, then pleaded guilty on February 26, 2016 to trafficking in heroin (F5) and possession of cocaine (F5).
- A presentence investigation was prepared; at sentencing (March 16, 2016) the court noted a lengthy criminal history (two prior felonies, ~10 misdemeanors) and bond violations.
- Sentences imposed: nine months incarceration for trafficking in heroin; three years community control for possession of cocaine; discretionary post-release control of up to three years on both counts.
- Rubalcava appealed, arguing his sentence is contrary to law, specifically challenging amenability to community control for crimes arising from the same conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is "contrary to law" | Rubalcava: sentence is contrary to law generally | State: trial court considered statutory factors, sentence within range | Court: sentence not contrary to law; affirmed |
| Post-release control correctness | Rubalcava: (general challenge) PRC improper | State: court imposed discretionary PRC up to 3 years per R.C. 2967.28(C) | Court: PRC properly imposed |
| Whether jail term falls within statutory range | Rubalcava: (general) sentence improper | State: 9 months for F5 is within 6–12 months under R.C. 2929.14(A)(5) | Court: sentence within statutory range |
| Compliance with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 (purposes, seriousness, recidivism) | Rubalcava: court erred in sentencing analysis | State: court considered PSI, criminal history, and goals of punishment/rehab | Court: record shows consideration of statutory factors; no reversible error |
| Amenability to community control on related offenses | Rubalcava: both offenses arose from same conduct so inconsistent amenability | State: trial court has discretion to impose different sanctions for related offenses | Court: court acted within discretion; no presumption of identical punishment; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (trial court not required to use specific words to show consideration of sentencing factors)