State v. Warren
2013 Ohio 3483
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Warren appeals his Clermont County Court of Common Pleas sentence after pleading guilty to one count of breaking and entering (fifth degree) and one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle; other counts were dismissed.
- Trial court sentenced 12 months on the breaking and entering and 18 months on the grand theft, to run consecutively for an aggregate 30 months.
- Appellate review follows R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); the court may modify or remand, but must clearly and convincingly find legal error or that the sentence is contrary to law.
- Warren argued ineffective-assistance-of-counsel at sentencing based on mitigation evidence, and argued the consecutive-sentence order violated statutory requirements.
- The court found the maximum sentences permissible within statutory ranges proper and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim, but remanded for proper consecutive-sentence findings and order without vacating the overall sentence.
- Judgment: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences proper under statute | Warren argues consecutive sentences lacked required statutory findings | Warren asserts failure to satisfy 2929.14(C)(4) findings | Remanded for missing findings; otherwise improper consecutive sentencing voidable |
| Maximum-term within statutory limits | Warren contends sentence exceeds legally permissible duration | Court properly sentenced within ranges for 4th and 5th degree felonies | Maximum sentences within statutory limits; not contrary to law |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing | Counsel failed to present better mitigation | Counsel adequately presented mitigation; no prejudice shown | No ineffective assistance; sentence affirmed on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crawford, 2013-Ohio-3315 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12-088 (2013)) (applies standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. A.H., 2013-Ohio-2525 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98622 (2013)) (analysis of the G(2) standard in felony sentencing appeals)
- State v. Cochran, 2012-Ohio-5899 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-408 (2012)) (recognizes deferential appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Elliott, 2009-Ohio-5926 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2009-03-020 (2009)) (discusses statutory sentencing considerations and review)