State v. Sands
2016 Ohio 7150
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Joseph A. Sands was convicted after a 2006 jury trial of: one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (RICO) and multiple counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and aggravated arson arising from a plot to kill public officials. The trial court merged conspiracy counts for sentencing and imposed consecutive 10-year terms for a 20-year total.
- Sands appealed earlier (Sands I), and this court affirmed the convictions; the Ohio Supreme Court denied delayed appeal.
- Sands filed numerous postconviction motions in state and federal courts; the motions at issue here were filed in 2015 and denied by the trial court on November 20, 2015.
- On appeal from that denial, Sands raised seven assignments of error challenging the RICO indictment/conviction, sentencing procedures, jurisdictional custody issues, finality of the journal entry, and postrelease control language.
- This panel affirmed the trial court’s rulings on most assignments but vacated the postrelease-control portion of the sentence because the journal entry and oral pronouncement used defective language; remanded for a new sentencing hearing on that issue only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of RICO conviction given single conspiracy sentence | State: sufficient evidence supported RICO because Sands was convicted of multiple conspiracy counts as predicate acts | Sands: cannot be guilty of RICO if only one conspiracy was sentenced; time frame insufficient | Affirmed: prior opinion (Sands I) controls; evidence showed multiple predicate conspiracies despite one aggregated sentencing count |
| Effect of merging conspiracy counts on RICO/pattern element | State: merging for sentencing does not negate multiple predicate offenses | Sands: merger eliminated the pattern element and implicated double jeopardy | Rejected: res judicata from Sands I; merger for sentencing does not eliminate convictions for multiple predicate conspiracies |
| Custody transfers and jurisdiction to sentence | State: custody exchanges were lawful | Sands: transfers to federal custody without governor's warrant divested state of jurisdiction | Rejected: statutory basis cited by Sands does not support his claim; no jurisdictional defect shown |
| Postrelease control language in judgment | State: postrelease control was imposed | Sands: journal entry used incorrect wording making postrelease control void | Sustained in part: language voided postrelease-control portion; remand for correction and new sentencing hearing limited to that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sands, 127 Ohio St.3d 1443 (2010) (Ohio Supreme Court denial of delayed appeal following appellate affirmation)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (holding that trial courts were not required to make specific judicial-finding findings when imposing consecutive sentences at the time of Foster)