State v. Watson
2013 Ohio 3392
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Watson sold cocaine to undercover Medina County Drug Task Force officers on two occasions in Nov. 2011.
- He was indicted for Trafficking in Drugs (Cocaine, Schedule II) and Trafficking in Drugs (Cocaine, Schedule II in the Vicinity of a Juvenile).
- Watson pleaded not guilty and waived a jury; the trial court conducted a bench trial.
- The court convicted Watson on both counts but found no reasonable doubt that the transaction occurred in the vicinity of a juvenile.
- Watson was sentenced to six months on Count 1 and thirty-six months on Count 2, running concurrently with his burglary sentence; this court affirmed the judgment on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the maximum sentence on a third-degree felony violated Foster | Watson argued the court failed to reference R.C. 2929.12(A). | State argued the sentence within statutory range and presumptively considered factors. | No error; sentence within range and presumed factor consideration. |
| Whether clerical error in judgment entry about vicinity of a juvenile was harmless | Watson argued the judgment entry incorrectly stated the vicinity of a juvenile. | Court made a clerical error but sentencing was consistent with findings. | Harmless error; affirmed notwithstanding the typographical issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (established factors for overriding statutory mandate in sentencing; presumption with within-range sentences)
- State v. Bennett, 2012-Ohio-3664 (9th Dist. Summit No. 26241) (presumption presentence report used in sentencing unless record shows otherwise)
- State v. Unik, 2012-Ohio-307 (9th Dist. Lorain No. 11CA009996) (duty to ensure record completeness on appeal)
- State v. Estright, 2009-Ohio-5676 (9th Dist. Summit No. 24401) (within-range sentence carries presumption of considering 2929.12 factors)
- State v. Rutherford, 2009-Ohio-2071 (2d Dist. Champaign No. 08CA11) (within-range sentences presumed to reflect statutory factors)
- State v. Caldwell, 2013-Ohio-1417 (9th Dist. Summit No. 26306) (harmless error in judgment entry where no substantial rights affected)
- State v. Brown, 2004-Ohio-2990 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-130) (remand for correction of judgment entry where clerical error evident)