State v. Ryan
2012 Ohio 5070
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Eric Ryan was convicted by plea to multiple offenses in Cuyahoga County, including robbery, drug possession/trafficking, weapons offenses, and related firearm specifications.
- The plea agreement provided that firearm specifications for Counts 5–11 would run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the firearm specification on Count 2.
- The trial court sentenced Ryan on October 27, 2011, imposing a total seven-year term for the current case, with several counts running concurrent and some consecutive to firearm specifications.
- In a separate case noted as CR-536381, the court imposed a two-year sentence on having weapons under disability, consecutive to a three-year firearm specification term, and ordered this to run consecutive to the prior three-year gun spec term.
- The court referenced R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to justify concurrency/consecution and acknowledged the potential cross-reference issues arising from amendments in HB 86 to 2929.41(A) and 2929.14.
- On appeal, Ryan challenges the trial court’s use of consecutive sentences, arguing improper application of the statutory framework for consecutive sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were legally authorized | State contends consecutive sentences were authorized under the revised framework. | Ryan contends the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences under incorrect statutory cross-references and without proper justification. | Consecutive sentences upheld; court corrected statutory cross-reference and applied appropriate findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (canons of interpretation aid, not control legislative intent)
- State v. Virasayachack, 138 Ohio App.3d 570 (Eighth Dist. 2000) (statutory construction can correct obvious errors to reflect legislative intent)
- State v. Gomez, 2011-Ohio-5475 (Nine District 2011) (court may correct drafting errors to carry out legislature's intent)
- Brim v. Rice, 20 Ohio App.2d 293 (1st Dist. 1969) (technical corrections may be made to effectuate purpose)
- Westgate Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 8th Dist. No. 96978 (2012-Ohio-1942) (statutory interpretation avoids surplusage; legislative intent governs)