State v. Wallace
2013 Ohio 2871
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Wallace was convicted no contest to driving under suspension in Case No. 2011 TRD 997 and placed on probation for one year with license restoration as a condition.
- Wallace later pled no contest to another driving under suspension charge in Case No. 2011 TRD 3895, with sentencing to follow and instruction to provide driver’s license and insurance.
- Probation officials notified a possible probation violation for failing to report and for the new driving under suspension charge around August 24, 2012.
- On August 30, 2012, a probation-violation hearing and related sentencing occurred; Wallace admitted probation violation and the court sentenced him to 180 days and terminated probation.
- Wallace challenged the procedure as failing allocution rights and contended the sentence was an abuse of discretion given earlier restraints.
- The trial court’s judgment flushed the probation violation and imposed a 180-day jail term, within statutory limits for a first-degree misdemeanor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allocution was provided before sentencing | Wallace claims Crim.R. 32(A)(1) right was not honored | Wallace asserts no meaningful opportunity to speak prior to sentencing | Allocution provided; court asked Wallace to speak and afforded opportunity to address matters |
| Whether the 180-day sentence was an abuse of discretion | Wallace says sentence was excessive given probation history | Wallace argues court failed to consider 2929.21/22 factors and deterrence | Not an abuse of discretion; within statutory range and supported by considering violations and deterrence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000-Ohio-183) (allocution requirement under Crim.R. 32(A)(1))
- Defiance v. Cannon, 70 Ohio App.3d 821 (3d Dist. 1990) (allocation of right to allocution and mitigation matters)
- Crable, 2004-Ohio-6812 (7th Dist. 2004) (downgraded requirement to state record of sentencing factors not mandatory for misdemeanor)
- State v. Reynolds, 2009-Ohio-935 (7th Dist. 2009) (misdemeanor sentence review standards and presumptions)
- State v. Best, 2009-Ohio-6806 (7th Dist. 2009) (presumption that sentencing criteria were considered when the record is silent)