State v. Ward
2017 Ohio 4381
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Buck Allen Ward pled guilty to one count of third-degree felony robbery pursuant to a Crim.R. 11 plea; the State reserved sentencing discretion.
- Trial court continued sentencing for a presentence investigation (PSI) and later imposed the maximum 36-month prison term plus discretionary post-release control and restitution; 48 days jail credit was awarded.
- At sentencing the court read an extensive criminal-history summary from the PSI; some entries reflected charges with unclear dispositions or "Not Reported" dispositions.
- Defense counsel objected that the court should consider only convictions (not unresolved charges) and the court acknowledged that distinction on the record.
- Ward argued on appeal that (1) the court relied on inaccurate/mischaracterized criminal-history information when imposing the maximum term, and (2) the court violated his common-law/Crim.R. 32(A)(1) allocution rights by interrupting him.
- The Seventh District affirmed, holding the alleged inaccuracies were harmless and Ward’s allocution right was satisfied by multiple opportunities to speak.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum (36-month) sentence based on mischaracterized criminal-history information | State: The record supports the sentence; PSI and convictions demonstrate recidivism and risk of reoffending | Ward: Court relied on charged-but-not-convicted matters and "Not Reported" dispositions when imposing the maximum term | Affirmed — any misstatements were harmless; court relied on numerous documented convictions and R.C. 2929.12 factors supporting maximum term |
| Whether Ward was denied his right of allocution under Crim.R. 32(A)(1) / common law when the court interrupted him | State: Court afforded Ward the opportunity to speak and considered his statements | Ward: Court interrupted him while speaking, impeding an unfettered allocution | Affirmed — court addressed Ward directly, gave multiple opportunities to speak, and allocution requirement was satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences; reversal only if record clearly and convincingly does not support sentence or sentence is contrary to law)
- State v. Campbell, 738 N.E.2d 1178 (Ohio 2000) (Crim.R. 32(A)(1) allocution requirement imposes an affirmative duty on the trial court and must be strictly complied with)
- Defiance v. Cannon, 592 N.E.2d 884 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (allocution right is absolute and applies to felony and misdemeanor convictions)