State v. Upkins
2012 Ohio 6114
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Upkins was indicted on four counts of trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), all felonies of the fifth degree.
- A jury trial occurred on December 29, 2011, with sentencing on February 13, 2012.
- The trial court sentenced Upkins to nine months per count, consecutive for a total of 36 months, and ordered restitution of $830 to the Sidney Police Department.
- Upkins appeals, challenging consecutive sentences, statutory findings, reasons for consecutive terms, and restitution.
- The first assignment of error was withdrawn by Upkins; the second, third, and fourth assignments remain at issue.
- The appellate court reverses the judgment, finds error in the lack of required statutory findings for consecutive sentences, and sustains the restitution error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the consecutive sentences supported by required statutory findings? | Upkins alleges missing 2929.14(C)(4) findings. | Upkins contends trial court failed to make necessary findings. | Second assignment sustained; findings not made. |
| Did the court's reasons for consecutive sentences justify them semantically under 2929.14(C)? | Reasons were insufficient to warrant consecutive terms. | Current statute does not require reasons to be stated on the record. | Moot; court did not make required findings, review unavailable. |
| Was restitution properly ordered to the Sidney Police Department? | Restitution to a government entity for investigation costs is permissible. | Restitution to government investigators is not to be paid to a victim under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). | Restitution to the Sidney Police Department sustained error; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3d Dist. No. 6-11-07) (requires explicit 2929.14(C)(4) findings when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Alexander, 2012-Ohio-3349 (1st Dist. No. C–110828, C–110829) (identifies findings required for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-2075 (1st Dist. No. C-110603) (discusses proportionality and findings for consecutive terms)
- State v. Bonner, 2012-Ohio-2931 (8th Dist. No. 97747) (considers statutory findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Sullivan, 2012-Ohio-2737 (10th Dist. No. 11AP-414) (continues analysis of 2929.14(C)(4) findings)