State v. Stevens
2017 Ohio 2970
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009 James Stevens contracted to replace the roof of elderly victims Don and Marsha Jaenke and accepted a $9,000 deposit but did not complete the work or return the money.
- In 2015 Stevens was indicted on two counts of theft from an elderly person; he pled guilty to one count (third-degree felony) and the other count was dismissed.
- The parties agreed on restitution of $8,609.46; a $3,300 deposit was required pending plea/sentencing. Stevens caused a $3,000 payment to be made on June 1, 2016 by Stanley and Patsy Newmeyer (another elderly couple), who later demanded return of that loaned money.
- At sentencing Stevens had not paid the remaining restitution and had not obtained reliable employment; the court held a hearing and sentenced him to three years in prison on August 31, 2016.
- Stevens appealed, raising three assignments of error challenging the court's consideration of the $3,000 loan, the court's handling of the presentence investigation (PSI) and recidivism matters, and the accuracy of the PSI.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Stevens' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court improperly used the fact Stevens borrowed $3,000 (from Newmeyers) to justify imprisonment | The court may consider the payment context and outstanding restitution when sentencing; the disputed $3,000 was relevant to restitution resolution | Borrowing the $3,000 should not be a sentencing factor leading to imprisonment | Court held the loan was not an enhancing factor; sentencing was proper because Stevens still owed most restitution and failed to seek reliable employment |
| Whether the court refused to consider recidivism/PSI in violation of R.C. 2929.12 and Crim.R. 11 | State argued PSI and plea advisements supported the court’s discretion; prosecutor’s recommendation is not binding | Stevens argued the court ignored PSI recidivism aspects and plea-related expectations | Court held it considered relevant PSI material, complied with Crim.R. 11, and was not bound by prosecutor’s recommendation |
| Whether the court erred by sentencing without ordering an accurate PSI | State noted court excluded PSI facts unrelated to the charged victims and followed statutory procedures | Stevens argued PSI contained inaccurate facts about a different incident and the court should have ordered corrections before sentencing | Court held it complied with R.C. 2951.03(B)(5)(b) by declining to consider unrelated PSI allegations; no plain error shown |
| Whether any unobjected-to errors in PSI or procedure warrant reversal under plain-error review | State argued any failure was not prejudicial and outcome would not differ | Stevens contended failure to correct PSI was prejudicial | Court applied plain-error standard and found no manifest miscarriage of justice; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Darmour, 38 Ohio App.3d 160 (Ohio Ct. App.) (supports that trial court may impose a harsher sentence than prosecutor's recommendation when defendant was warned of maximum penalties)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (sets plain-error standard and cautions that notice of plain error is to be exercised with utmost caution)