State v. Waxler
69 N.E.3d 1132
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- David Waxler was indicted in 2010 on multiple cocaine trafficking/possession counts and receiving stolen property; he pled no contest to five counts.
- Original sentencing in April 2011 produced an aggregate 13-year prison term (concurrent on some counts, consecutive on others) and a $25,000 fine.
- On direct appeal the Sixth District vacated the sentencing entry and remanded for resentencing because the trial court had erroneously found Waxler had caused or threatened physical harm and mischaracterized his plea; the court ordered resentencing.
- Waxler was resentenced in October 2012; the court reimposed the same 13-year aggregate term but corrected the plea label, removed the physical-harm finding, and waived the fine.
- Waxler filed a delayed appeal challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences without the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (as amended by H.B. 86, effective Sept. 30, 2011).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Waxler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings when resentencing after H.B. 86 became effective | R.C. 1.58(B) does not require application because the amendments do not reduce punishment and Waxler’s sentence was already imposed pre-H.B. 86 | The amended statute potentially reduces punishment; resentencing occurred after H.B. 86, so the court must apply R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | The court held the trial court was required to consider R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at resentencing and remanded for that limited determination |
| Whether failure to make those findings is waived or plain error | The state argued waiver or that prior imposition insulated resentencing from the amendment | Waxler argued plain error and that resentencing invoked the amended statute | The court applied plain-error principles and concluded failure to apply the post-H.B. 86 requirements constitutes plain error when resentencing occurred after the amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (constitutional limit on judicial factfinding that increases punishment)
- Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio invalidation of judicial factfinding provision in sentencing statute)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (permissibility of judicial factfinding for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court on effect of Ice and legislature’s role)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain error doctrine)
- State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (plain error standard explained)