State v. Shabazz
91 N.E.3d 201
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Derrell Shabazz was convicted at trial of aggravated murder, murder, and multiple counts of felonious assault and having a weapon while under disability in a bar fight; several Shannon-related counts were merged and the state elected to proceed on aggravated murder.
- Trial court originally sentenced Shabazz to 20 years-to-life on aggravated murder, 2 years for felonious assault of Ivor Anderson, and 9 months for weapon-under-disability; the 2-year term was ordered consecutive to the 20-to-life sentence.
- This court vacated convictions for aggravated murder, murder, weapons-under-disability, and two felonious-assault counts in State v. Shabazz (Shabazz I), but affirmed the convictions for felonious assault related to Shannon and Anderson and remanded for resentencing on one Shannon-related felonious-assault count.
- On remand the trial court resentenced the Shannon felonious-assault count to four years and, at the state’s request, incorporated the previously affirmed 2-year Anderson sentence into the judgment and ordered the 4-year and 2-year terms to run consecutively.
- Shabazz appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in resentencing/altering the Anderson sentence and (2) the trial court lacked authority to order the new 4-year term consecutive to a 2-year term that had been completed during the pendency of the direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly resentenced the Anderson felonious-assault count at resentencing | State: trial court merely incorporated the previously affirmed Anderson sentence into the entry for clarity | Shabazz: trial court resentenced him on the Anderson count | Court: No resentencing occurred; the court only incorporated the previously affirmed sentence for clarity |
| Whether the trial court had authority to order consecutive sentences when one sentence (the 2-year Anderson term) had been completed during the direct appeal | State: trial court may impose consecutive sentences on remand when the result does not increase the aggregate exposure compared to the original judgment | Shabazz: Holdcroft should bar imposing consecutive sentences after one term was already served during appeal | Court: Holdcroft does not apply; trial court had authority because consecutive ordering did not increase aggregate sentence and original sentencing had already included consecutive disposition |
| Whether the record fails to clearly and convincingly support the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings (proportionality) | State: record supports proportionality given defendant’s active participation and the harm caused | Shabazz: consecutive sentences were disproportionate to his relative contribution | Court: Proportionality finding is supported by the record (defendant aided and abetted assaults); appellate standard not met |
| Whether remand/resentencing altered defendant’s aggregate sentence unlawfully | State: remand addressed a previously merged count and did not increase aggregate exposure | Shabazz: resentencing created an unlawful change because one sentence had been completed | Court: remand sentencing was proper and did not unlawfully increase aggregate punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (trial court lacks authority to resentence to add postrelease control after the defendant has already served that offense’s term)