State v. Saylor
2019 Ohio 1025
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In Dec. 2017 police executed a warrant at Saylor’s residence and found: marijuana plants and cultivation equipment (27 plants and dedicated grow areas), raw marijuana, hashish, pill-press and pill-manufacturing materials, powders (including a Schedule I hallucinogen), and two loaded handguns.
- Saylor was indicted on multiple drug, weapons, and child-endangerment counts with firearm and forfeiture specifications; he pled guilty to possession of LSD (Count 4), trafficking in counterfeit controlled substances (Count 5), possession/assembly of chemicals to manufacture a controlled substance (Count 7) with a firearm specification, and endangering children (Count 8); other counts were dismissed. No plea agreement on sentence.
- At sentencing Saylor admitted heroin addiction, that he obtained heroin and carfentanil, used a pill press to make counterfeit Percocet, and sold pills; he claimed marijuana cultivation was for personal use.
- The court imposed consecutive terms producing an aggregate 12.5-year sentence (within statutory ranges): 6 months (Count 4), 18 months (Count 5), 8 years (Count 7) + 1-year firearm spec, and 24 months (Count 8), with Counts 5 and 8 consecutive to Count 7/spec but concurrent to Count 4.
- On appeal Saylor argued the trial court improperly considered his financial circumstances/recidivism, misused the ORAS risk score, and erred in imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Saylor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court improperly used Saylor’s lack of income/employment as a recidivism factor | Court reasonably relied on statutory recidivism factors and Saylor’s admissions (selling drugs to support habit) | Court erred by considering financial status as increasing recidivism risk and violating equal protection | Affirmed — court’s remarks explained why R.C. 2929.12(E)(4) did not apply; use of financial circumstances did not render sentence contrary to law and record supports findings |
| Whether reliance on ORAS score was improper | ORAS may inform discretion; judge noted score but discounted it and otherwise relied on record | ORAS was misread and uses demographic data outside offense conduct | Affirmed — court did not over-rely on ORAS; score was noted and devalued, and record independently supported risk findings |
| Whether consecutive sentences lacked required findings or record support (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)) | Court made required statutory findings and explained course-of-conduct harm (manufacturing/selling carfentanil-laced counterfeit pills posed unusual risk) | No evidence that Saylor’s pills posed greater/unique danger or that harm was "great or unusual" | Affirmed — court made findings and record (pill-press, carfentanil/heroin mixture, distribution) supports conclusion that harm was great/unusual; consecutive terms justified |
| Whether overall sentence was contrary to law or unsupported by record | Sentences were within statutory ranges; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and relevant evidence | Aggregate 12.5-year sentence excessive given lack of adult record and mitigation | Affirmed — individual terms lawful and record supports sentencing choices; no clear-and-convincing showing to overturn |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences and clear-and-convincing record review)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court need not state reasons supporting statutory findings for consecutive sentences)
- Arnett v. Ohio, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (trial court discretion in assigning weight to sentencing factors; may consider personal experience)
- State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 (1992) (sentencing courts need not decide in a vacuum; may rely on experience and discretion)