State v. Tidmore, 2019 Ohio 1529

Background

Defendant Lacynthia Tidmore struck a 9-year-old girl (D.M.) while the child crossed the street; the child later died from her injuries. Tidmore did not stop, render aid, or report the accident and continued with her day until her damaged vehicle was spotted at a gas station.
Tidmore was indicted on aggravated vehicular homicide and failure to stop after an accident (both third-degree felonies) and pled guilty to both counts.
At sentencing the court imposed maximum terms on each count (5 years and 3 years respectively) to be served consecutively, for an aggregate 8-year term, plus post-release control and lifetime license suspension.
The trial court stated consecutive terms were necessary to punish and that the harm was "so great or unusual" that a single term was inadequate; the court also commented on Tidmore’s remorse (or lack thereof).
On appeal Tidmore challenged (1) the sufficiency of the statutory findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and (2) that the court relied on uncharged/unproven misconduct (an alleged grocery-store altercation) in imposing maximum, consecutive sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court made all required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences	State argued the court made required findings and record supports consecutive terms given the severity of the conduct	Tidmore argued the court failed to make the full proportionality finding (did not state consecutive terms were not disproportionate to the danger she poses) and record does not support consecutive terms	Court: Vacated consecutive sentences and remanded for the limited purpose of making the missing proportionality finding on the record; but found record did support the "harm so great or unusual" prong (so rehearing, not a full reversal)
Whether the record supports the finding that the harm was "so great or unusual" such that consecutive terms are warranted	State: Record (fatal injuries, severe trauma, failure to stop/report/aid) supports the statutory “harm” finding	Tidmore: Argued record does not clearly support that the harm was so unusual to require consecutive terms	Court: Held record does support the "harm so great or unusual" finding under deferential standard; did not clearly and convincingly lack support
Whether trial court improperly considered uncharged/unproven misconduct in imposing maximum/consecutive sentences	State: Trial court relied on offense conduct, victim impact, and appropriate sentencing factors; any mention of uncharged conduct was not the sole basis	Tidmore: Argued the court considered an alleged grocery-store altercation and lack of indictment/conviction made reliance unconstitutional	Court: Held a sentencing court may consider uncharged/undisputed conduct if not the sole basis; here any reference to the incident was not the sole basis and did not violate due process
Whether maximum sentences were contrary to law or violated due process	State: Sentences were within statutory range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors	Tidmore: Contended enhanced (maximum) sentences were improperly based on unproven allegations and insufficient findings	Court: Upheld maximum sentences; found no constitutional violation and that the record shows consideration of statutory sentencing principles

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state it engaged in analysis and specify which statutory bases support consecutive sentences; findings must appear on the record and in the entry)
State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1999) (trial court must note it engaged in analysis when departing from statutory ranges)
State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio App.) (explains clear-and-convincing appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio App.) (a sentencing court may consider allegations of uncharged criminal conduct when not the sole basis for sentence)