State v. Sari
2017 Ohio 2933
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jessica M. Sari, held at Lake County Jail on a misdemeanor, was released on a medical furlough on Dec. 21, 2015, and concealed heroin in her vagina before returning to the jail. The heroin was distributed to other inmates; one inmate (Kristi) later died and another (Christine) overdosed and required Narcan.
- Sari was indicted on: illegal conveyance of drugs onto detention facility (third-degree felony) and two counts of corrupting another with drugs (second-degree felonies). She pled guilty to Count One and an amended Count Two (covering both victims); the other count was to be dismissed at sentencing.
- At sentencing the state sought maximum terms; the court imposed consecutive maximum terms (3 years on Count One; 8 years mandatory on Amended Count Two), totaling 11 years, ordered $12,608.20 restitution (jointly and severally) and a mandatory $7,500 fine.
- Sari appealed, raising four sentencing-related assignments of error: (1) improper application of R.C. 2929.12 aggravating/mitigating factors; (2) improper imposition of consecutive sentences; (3) disproportionality compared to similarly situated offenders (especially co-defendants); and (4) error imposing mandatory fine given alleged indigency.
- The trial court relied on the PSI, victim impact statement, drug/alcohol and psychological evaluations, and stated findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The appellate court affirmed, finding most trial-court findings supported by the record and any errors harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sari) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of R.C. 2929.12 factors | Court properly found several seriousness and recidivism factors (relationship facilitated offense; organized activity; drug history; prior record) | Court misapplied factors (relationship-facilitation overbroad; not organized crime; drug history improperly weighted) | Affirmed: record supports most R.C. 2929.12 findings; one error (crime committed while serving misdemeanor sanction) harmless. |
| Consecutive sentences (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)) | Consecutive terms necessary to protect public, punish, and not disproportionate; other statutory prongs supported | Consecutive sentences unsupported (no felony sanction at time; disproportionate; insufficient findings) | Affirmed: required findings made and are supported by record; the misdemeanor-sentence finding was error but harmless. |
| Proportionality to similar offenders | Sentence consistent with statutory aims and Sari’s culpability (physical smuggling) | Sentence disproportionate compared to co-defendants (Sari less culpable; non-violent; needs treatment) | Affirmed: court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; 11-year term not inconsistent or disproportionate. |
| Mandatory fine under R.C. 2929.18 | Fine mandatory unless indigency affidavit filed prior to sentencing; none was filed | Sari indigent as shown in PSI; court should have waived fine | Affirmed: Sari did not file an affidavit of indigency before sentencing; mandatory fine properly imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (trial court need not use talismanic language to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make the statutory findings supporting consecutive sentences and those findings must appear in both the sentencing hearing and the judgment entry)
- Edmonson v. Lucre, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (Ohio 1999) (trial court must state statutory reasons when departing from minimum sentences; illustrates need for an adequate record of findings)
- Gipson v. Ohio, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (Ohio 1998) (an indigency affidavit must be filed prior to sentencing to avoid imposition of a mandatory fine)
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (explaining appellate standard of review for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08)