2013 Ohio 4286
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Dale Tackett was convicted by a jury of two counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OVI) with a specification under R.C. 2941.1413 that he had five or more prior OVI offenses within 20 years.
- The indictment and trial related to events in 2011, culminating in a February 2012 jury verdict and a March 20, 2012 sentencing hearing.
- Defendant was observed speeding in Ashtabula, smelled of alcohol, had numerous open containers, and displayed slurred speech; he refused the breath test and was directed to a hospital for a blood test.
- At hospital, Tackett’s blood was drawn after officers restrained him; his BAC was 0.232.
- The trial court sentenced Tackett to 120 days (underlying OVI) plus a two-year mandatory term on the repeat-offender specification, to be served consecutively, prompting an appeal.
- The court later remanded for resentencing, holding the sentence on the underlying OVI and the specification improper to impose both terms; the specification remained valid but required a separate valid OVI sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the dual imposition of a 120-day OVI sentence and a separate 2-year specification term proper? | Tackett (state) contends the judge erred by imposing both mandatory terms. | Tackett contends the combined sentence violates statutory scheme and McAdams/Stillwell. | Imposition of both terms was improper; remand for valid OVI sentence in addition to the specification. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to prove the five or more prior OVI convictions within 20 years? | State argues Exhibit A establishes a prior conviction within 20 years. | Tackett argues Exhibit A is not a valid judgment of conviction. | Exhibit A satisfied Crim.R. 32(C) and supported the prior-conviction specification. |
| Did Tackett receive effective assistance of counsel regarding admission of non-OVI convictions and blood-test suppression? | State contends admission of non-OVI offenses was harmless prejudice. | Tackett claims counsel failed to pursue suppression of blood-test results and erred by admitting non-OVI convictions. | No ineffective-assistance violation; admissions were harmless and suppression motion would not have likely succeeded. |
| Was the blood draw conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner given force used to restrain Tackett? | State argues force used was reasonable to obtain the blood sample. | Tackett asserts excessive force violated due process. | Force was objectively reasonable; suppression unlikely; counsel not ineffective for not moving to suppress. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McAdams, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-012 (2011-Ohio-157) (concerning interplay of OVI penalties with 2941.1413 specifications)
- State v. Stillwell, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2006-L-010 (2007-Ohio-3190) (separate penalty authorized for five or more OVI offenses within 20 years)
- State v. Kennedy, 2011-Ohio 4291 (2nd Dist. Champaign No. 2011 CA 3) (statutory framework for OVI specifications and sentencing)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency review standard)
- State v. Grenter, 2011-Ohio-6003 (11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2011-A-0013) (nunc pro tunc corrections and clerical-mistake principles)