State v. Wynn
2012 Ohio 3430
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Davison was assaulted at Hall of Fame Fuel Mart by Wynn, Anderson, and Johnson; Davison suffered severe head trauma and a deep stab wound, requiring lengthy hospitalization and rehabilitation.
- All three assailants were identified in video and by photo lineups; Davison’s weapon was recovered outside the store.
- Indictments charged felonious assault with repeat violent offender (RVO) specifications for all three defendants.
- Wynn moved to bifurcate the felonious assault count from the RVO specification; the court bifurcated and overruled the objection to the RVO.
- All three were convicted of felonious assault and the court sentenced Wynn to 8 years for felonious assault plus 10 years for the RVO specification (and 724 days’ postrelease control violation).
- Appellant appeals the convictions and sentences on three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of RVO specification as applied | Wynn argues due process/equal protection violations from retroactive enhancement. | State contends no due process violation; RVO validly enhances punishment. | RVO specification constitutional as applied. |
| Ex post facto challenge to the RVO specification | Wynn asserts the RVO violates the ex post facto clause. | State maintains no ex post facto violation. | RVO specification does not violate ex post facto clause. |
| Constitutional validity of admitting video under confrontation clause | Crawford violation due to inability to cross-examine over the video. | Video is non-testimonial; confrontation clause not violated. | No plain error; trial court did not err in admitting the videotape. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 99 (2007-Ohio-1533) (uncounseled conviction may not be used to enhance penalty if incarceration resulted)
- Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994) (rule on consideration of prior convictions for sentencing)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (broad authority of sentencing judges to consider diverse information)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (recidivism factors in sentencing)
- State v. Hunter, 123 Ohio St.3d 164 (2009-Ohio-4147) (RVO specification does not violate Sixth Amendment)
- State v. Sargent, 126 Ohio App.3d 557 (12th Dist.1998) (recidivism-based enhancements do not offend ex post facto)
- State v. Adkins, 2011-Ohio-3141 (Ohio Supreme Court 2011) (notice of enhanced punishment for criminal-enhancement statute)
- State v. Smith, 5th Dist. No. 2004CA00362, 2005-Ohio-6066 () (RVO considerations in sentencing)