State v. Stone
2012 Ohio 1895
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Stone pleaded guilty to aggravated murder (Count Two), aggravated robbery (Count Three), and burglary (Count Nine) under a plea agreement that dismissed other charges.
- The State would recommend 25 to life on aggravated murder, 6 years on aggravated robbery, and 2 years on burglary, with the latter two served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the murder term, totaling 27 to life.
- The trial court sentenced Stone to 25 years to life for aggravated murder, 5 years for aggravated robbery, and 5 years for burglary, with the latter two consecutive to the murder term, totaling 30 years to life.
- Stone appealed arguing that consecutive sentences required findings under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and that the sentence exceeded the minimum or the plea-recommended term.
- The court held that Foster does not apply to require findings in this case because the sentencing occurred before the legislative change; the court additionally found the sentence warranted by the offenses' gravity and Stone’s conduct.
- The court affirmed, noting it considered sentencing statutes, record, statements, and victim impacts, and that the plea agreement did not bind the court to the State’s recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive-sentence findings were required | Stone | Stone | No findings required; Foster not applied |
| Whether the sentence exceeds the minimum or is unsupported by the record | Stone argues remorse and rehabilitation justify minimum | Stone argues sentence too harsh despite plea | Consecutive sentence justified given offense gravity; not bound by State’s recommendation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (severed portion requiring judicial fact-finding for consecutive sentences)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Sixth Amendment, judicial findings permissible post-Ice)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (Foster remains valid but requires sentencing considerations under 2929.11, 2929.12)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (review standard for felony sentences; Kalish plurality approach)
- State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (2007-Ohio-767) (clear-and-convincing standard remains viable under certain appeals)