State v. Weaver
2016 Ohio 811
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Weaver was one of 11 defendants indicted in a fraudulent prescription drug scheme targeting oxycodone.
- He, with a medical degree, wrote fake prescriptions and recruited others to fill them.
- Weaver worked as a counselor for a ministry aiding individuals with substance abuse issues after prison release.
- Many recruits were vulnerable or homeless, recruited from the ministry or seeking help.
- Weaver was described as the mastermind; co-defendant Samuel Jackson was his alleged right-hand man.
- Law enforcement recovered a binder with an internet printout on writing prescriptions and numerous filled prescription papers; Weaver had stolen prescription pads from MetroHealth Hospital.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences appropriateness | Weaver argues consecutive terms improperly imposed | Weaver contends harm was not great; consecutive terms excessive | Consecutive sentences affirmed for harm and recidivism factors |
| Consideration of sentencing factors | Court properly considered purposes and principles of felony sentencing | Court failed to properly consider factors and mitigating evidence | Court properly considered purposes and factors; no reversal |
| Post-release control notification | Court failed to notify at sentencing | Notification occurred later; nunc pro tunc possible | Notification given; remand for nunc pro tunc entry to reflect findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tate, 2014-Ohio-5269 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97804 (2014)) (standard of review for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 (Ohio Supreme Court) (requirement to incorporate consecutive-sentence findings into sentencing entry)
- State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (elimination of maximum-sentence findings as unconstitutional)
- State v. Kay, 2015-Ohio-4403 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26344) (no explicit necessity to state reasons for consecutive findings; formal findings not mandatory in entry)
- State v. Qualls, 2012-Ohio-1111 (Ohio) (nunc pro tunc corrections to reflect court’s actual ruling)