State v. Simonoski
2013 Ohio 1031
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Indictment on April 20, 2010 for attempted murder, four counts of felonious assault, and two counts of domestic violence arising from an ax attack on wife and daughter.
- Defendant pled no contest on March 30, 2012; sentencing delayed for PSI report.
- Trial court sentenced May 2, 2012: 10 years for attempted murder with counts about wife merged; 8 years for felonious assault on daughter with related counts merged; sentences run consecutively for a total of 18 years.
- Wife survived but requires nursing home care; daughter also affected by the attack.
- Trial court relied on the PSI, crime-scene photographs, and victim-impact statements during sentencing.
- Appellate court affirmed convictions and addressed statutory interpretation of consecutive sentencing under HB 86 and related case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive-sentencing legality under HB 86/R.C. 2929.14(C) | Simonovski argues presumption of concurrent sentences; exceptions absent. | Simonovski contends court misapplied the statute. | Consecutive sentences properly imposed; statute interpreted correctly. |
| Effect of plea and Crim.R. 11 compliance for no contest plea | State argues plea had proper effect; court explained maximums and rights. | Simonovski contends insufficient explanation of plea effect. | No prejudicial error; substantial compliance; plea validity upheld. |
| Use of evidence outside the plea in imposing maximum sentence | State contends court could consider PSI, photos, and victim statements. | Simonovski challenges reliance on non-indicted facts. | Consideration of PSI/photos/victim statements permissible; no independent analysis required. |
| Independent analysis in imposing consecutive sentences under HB 86 | State notes statutory requirements were stated verbatim. | Simonovski urges independent reasoning by the court. | No statutory requirement to articulate additional reasoning on the record. |
| Cruel and unusual punishment given alcoholism/major depressive disorder defenses | No such evidence supported sentencing factors. | Defense claimed mitigating conditions. | No evidence of alcoholism/depression; sentence not cruel or unusual. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walker, 2012-Ohio-4274 (8th Dist. No. 97648) (interpreting R.C. 2929.14(C) and HB 86 findings)
- State v. Ryan, 2012-Ohio-5070 (8th Dist. No. 98005) (statutory interpretation; 2929.41(A) typographical issue)
- State v. Hess, 2013-Ohio-10 (2d Dist. No. 25144) (HB 86 consecutive-sentencing requirements; fact-finding rules)
- State v. Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance; prejudice standard)
- State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (guilty vs no contest plea effects; nonconstitutional rights standard)
- State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (plea effect not prejudicial without innocence assertion)
- State v. Petitto, 2011-Ohio-2391 (8th Dist. No. 95276) (plea-effect discussion; no prejudice shown)
- State v. Goins, 2013-Ohio-263 (8th Dist. No. 98256) (no requirement to articulate reasons for consecutive findings on record)
- State v. Bonner, 2012-Ohio-2931 (8th Dist. No. 97747) (HB 86 consecutive-sentencing findings authority)