State v. BelcherState v. Belcher
SCOTT N. BLAUVELT, Atty. Reg. No. 0068177, 315 South Monument Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
OPINION
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On March 5, 2018, the Clark County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Belcher with two counts of failure to stop after an accident in violation of
{¶ 3} The charges stemmed from Belcher striking a motorcycle with her Dodge Neon as she was driving through an intersection in Clark County, Ohio. The motorcycle had two riders, both of whom were ejected from the motorcycle and seriously injured as a result of the collision. After the collision, Belcher drove away from the scene of the accident without attempting to aid the injured motorcyclists or calling 9-1-1. Belcher‘s vehicle broke down a short distance away, and she remained at her vehicle until she heard an ambulance arrive. Once the ambulance arrived, Belcher abandoned her
{¶ 4} On May 7, 2018, as part of a plea agreement, Belcher pled guilty to one count of failure to stop after an accident in exchange for the second charge being dismissed. The trial court accepted Belcher‘s guilty plea upon finding it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Following Belcher‘s guilty plea, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation and scheduled the matter for sentencing. At sentencing, the trial court heard statements from the two motorcyclists regarding their injuries and the effect the accident had had on their lives.
{¶ 5} The first motorcyclist, Crystal Blevins, advised the trial court that as a result of the accident, she sustained broken ribs, damaged vertebrae, broken fingers, and a broken pelvis. Blevins also stated that she had to have over 100 stitches in her scalp and some metal pins placed in her ankle and foot, which prevent her from bending her toes. Blevins further indicated that she will need to have her hip and knee replaced and will also require neck surgery in the future.
{¶ 6} The second motorcyclist, Paul Lumford, advised the trial court that his physical injuries were not as severe as Blevins‘. The presentence investigation report indicated that Lumford suffered from a shoulder injury and body trauma that required the removal of his gall bladder. Lumford also informed the trial court that he has suffered emotional trauma, which has affected his social skills.
{¶ 7} Following the motorcyclists’ statements, the trial court found under
Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Belcher‘s assignment of error is as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A PRISON TERM FOR COMMISSION OF A NONVIOLENT FIFTH-DEGREE FELONY.
{¶ 9} In her assignment of error, Belcher contends that the 10-month prison sentence imposed by the trial court is contrary to law. Specifically, Belcher argues that the trial court‘s finding under
{¶ 10} In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in
In the case of a motor vehicle accident or collision with persons or property on a public road or highway, the operator of the motor vehicle, having knowledge of the accident or collision, immediately shall stop the operator‘s motor vehicle at the scene of the accident or collision. The operator shall remain at the scene of the accident or collision until the operator has given the operator‘s name and address and, if the operator is not the owner, the name and address of the owner of that motor vehicle, together with the registered number of that motor vehicle, to all of the following:
(a) Any person injured in the accident or collision;
(b) The operator, occupant, owner, or attendant of any motor vehicle damaged in the accident or collision;
(c) The police officer at the scene of the accident or collision.
{¶ 12} Pursuant to this language, ”
{¶ 13} Generally, a driver who violates
{¶ 14} Pursuant to
(i) The offender previously has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony offense.
(ii) The most serious charge against the offender at the time of sentencing is a felony of the fourth or fifth degree.
(iii) If the court made a request of the department of rehabilitation and correction pursuant to division (B)(1)(c) of this section, the department, within the forty-five-day period specified in that division, provided the court with the names of, contact information for, and program details of one or more community control sanctions that are available for persons sentenced by the court.
(iv) The offender previously has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense of violence that the offender committed within two years prior to the offense for which sentence is being imposed.
{¶ 15} In this case, there is no dispute that Belcher satisfies all the foregoing criteria under
{¶ 16} The trial court in State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140299, 2015-Ohio-1189, made the exact same finding under a set of circumstances almost identical to the present case. Like Belcher, the defendant in Jones struck a motorcyclist while driving her vehicle and thereafter fled the scene of the accident. Id. at ¶ 1. The motorcyclist suffered serious physical injuries, including a fractured hip, dislocated knee, and ruptured spleen. Id. at ¶ 4. After being indicted, the defendant in Jones pled guilty to failure to stop after an accident as a felony of the fifth degree. Id. at ¶ 1. At sentencing, the trial court advised the defendant, who also satisfied the criteria under
{¶ 17} On appeal, the defendant in Jones argued that “the record before the trial court failed to demonstrate that she had caused any physical harm, beyond the injuries inflicted in the actual collision, while committing the punished offense of failure to stop after an accident.” Id. at ¶ 11. The defendant further argued that the motorcyclist‘s injuries “were inflicted by the collision itself and that there was no evidence in the record that anything she did nor failed to do after the accident caused physical harm to the victim.” Id.
{¶ 18} Upon review, the First Appellate District agreed with the defendant in Jones. The court held that it clearly and convincingly found that the record did not support the
{¶ 19} The State maintains that the decision in Jones was incorrect because serious physical harm is an element of the failure to stop offense as a fifth-degree felony. The State‘s argument is flawed, however, because the felony enhancement element of
{¶ 20} As previously noted, the trial court in this case found that
{¶ 21} If the legislature intended for the exception in
{¶ 22} Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that there is nothing in the record to support the trial court‘s finding that the physical harm exception under
{¶ 23} Belcher‘s sole assignment of error is sustained.
Conclusion
{¶ 24} Having sustained Belcher‘s assignment of error, the 10-month prison sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the trial court shall conduct a de novo sentencing hearing that is consistent with this opinion and Ohio law as it relates to sentencing for a nonviolent, fifth-degree felony offense.
Copies sent to:
Andrew P. Pickering
Scott N. Blauvelt
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter