2019 Ohio 4573
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Dashawn Strowder was 17 at the time of the offenses and bound over to adult court; he was convicted of multiple counts including rape, kidnapping, robbery, and felonious assault (one rape count acquitted) and found to have sexually violent predator specifications that add a "life tail."
- Trial court merged several counts and initially imposed cumulative sentences totaling 50 years-to-life, ordered consecutive to a separate 9-year Stark County sentence.
- On direct appeal this court affirmed convictions but remanded under Graham and Moore for resentencing to ensure the juvenile nonhomicide sentence affords a "meaningful opportunity for release."
- On remand the trial court significantly reduced the sentence to an aggregate 34 years-to-life (22 years on offenses + 12 years of firearm specifications) but again ordered it consecutive to the Stark County sentence; the parties and court provided differing statements about parole-eligibility dates, with the effective combined parole eligibility reaching age 61 (Sept. 2057).
- Strowder challenged the remand sentence as cruel and unusual (Eighth Amendment / Ohio Constitution), arguing parole eligibility at age 61 is a de facto life-without-parole; the State argued the sentence is not a "functional life" sentence and provides a realistic meaningful opportunity for release. The court affirmed the sentence but remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction to the firearm-specification language in the journal entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 34‑years‑to‑life aggregate sentence (consecutive to a Stark County term, producing parole eligibility at ~age 61) violates the Eighth Amendment’s Graham/Moore rule for juvenile nonhomicide offenders | The State: sentence is not a "functional life" sentence; remand produced a substantial downward departure (from 50-to-life to 34-to-life), gives a realistic/meaningful opportunity to seek release within normal life expectancy, and properly accounted for offense severity and recidivism risk | Strowder: parole eligibility at ~61 is effectively life; decades behind bars starting at 17 preclude a meaningful opportunity to reenter society and thus violates Graham and Moore | Court: Affirmed. The aggregate sentence is not a functional life sentence under Moore/Graham and affords a meaningful opportunity for release; sentencing discretion was permissible here given offenses and risk factors. |
| Whether the sentencing journal entry correctly reflects the court’s oral sentencing as to the four firearm specifications | State: acknowledged clerical inconsistencies between oral pronouncement and written entry and urged correction | Strowder: also noted discrepancy and sought nunc pro tunc correction | Court: Remanded for issuance of a nunc pro tunc sentencing journal entry to reflect the oral pronouncement regarding firearm specifications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juvenile nonhomicide life without parole is unconstitutional; juveniles must have a meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders barred)
- State v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 557 (Ohio Supreme Court applying Graham to hold very long term‑of‑years sentences that exceed life expectancy can be "functional life" sentences and must afford meaningful parole opportunity)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (Eighth Amendment principle that punishment must be graduated and proportioned)
- Casiano v. Commissioner of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 (discussion that long term-of-years may be effectively life and deprive juveniles of meaningful opportunity to reenter society)