State v. Woody
2021 Ohio 3861
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- In 2004 Woody caused a multi-vehicle crash that killed six and seriously injured another; he later pleaded no contest to multiple aggravated vehicular homicide/assault counts and was sentenced to an aggregate 19-year prison term.
- At initial sentencing the court advised it would consider judicial release; after re-sentencing under Foster Woody served 12 years and in Feb 2016 received judicial release and was placed on community control with conditions (including no alcohol/drugs, random testing, treatment, SCRAM monitoring, reporting to a probation officer).
- In mid-2019 Woody tested positive for cocaine, accrued new misdemeanor charges (OVI and driving without a license), and ceased contact with his probation officer for over a year; a bench warrant issued and Woody later pled no contest to driving without a license.
- In Dec 2020 Woody admitted violations of his community control at a revocation hearing; the trial court revoked judicial release and reimposed the original (reduced) prison sentence, crediting time served.
- Woody appealed, arguing the trial court improperly failed to (again) consider the sentencing statutory factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when reimposing the balance of his term.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Woody) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to reconsider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 before reimposing the remainder of Woody’s sentence after revoking judicial release under R.C. 2929.20(K) | Woody: Court should apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 when reimposing sentence; his violations were minor and did not merit reimposition of the remaining 7 years | State: R.C. 2929.20(K) authorizes reimposition of the original reduced sentence; that is not a new sentence requiring fresh consideration under 2929.11/2929.12 | The court held reimposition under R.C. 2929.20(K) is not a new sentence and the trial court did not have to reweigh 2929.11/2929.12; revocation and reimposition were not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (guidance on sentencing rules and remand for resentencing)
- State v. Fraley, 821 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must comply with relevant sentencing statutes when imposing a new sentence after community-control violation)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Toler, 798 N.E.2d 64 (Ohio App. 2003) (acknowledges abuse-of-discretion standard for community-control revocation)