State of Ohio v. Tadara D. Jones
Court of Appeals No. S-16-040; Trial Court No. 15 CR 1041
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY
Decided: May 25, 2018
[Cite as State v. Jones, 2018-Ohio-2033.]
SINGER, J.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Christopher L. Kinsler, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Nathan T. Oswald, for appellant.
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} This case is before the court on the appeal of appellant, Tadara Jones, from the September 27, 2016 judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas. The state has conceded error. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for resentencing.
I. The trial court erred when it failed to personally address Mr. Jones and give him a chance to speak before sentencing.
II. The trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences without making the findings required by
Facts
{¶ 3} On October 27, 2015, appellant was charged by indictment with various offenses, including two counts of trafficking in cocaine. Appellant was arraigned and pled not guilty.
{¶ 4} On July 12, 2016, the matter was called for trial. Appellant entered pleas of guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of
{¶ 5} On September 26, 2016, appellant was sentenced to 18 months in prison on each charge, to be served consecutively, for a total of 36 months of incarceration. Appellant appealed.
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} Appellant contends the trial court erred when the court failed to personally address appellant before sentencing and give him a chance to speak.
{¶ 7}
(A) Imposition of sentence. Sentence shall be imposed without unnecessary delay. Pending sentence, the court may commit the defendant or continue or alter the bail. At the time of imposing sentence, the court shall do all of the following:
(1) Afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and address the defendant personally and ask if he or she wishes to make a statement in his or her own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment.
{¶ 8} The defendant has an unconditional right of allocution as “[a]
{¶ 9} Here, the record shows the trial court did not address appellant until after the sentence was pronounced. Then, appellant did not speak in mitigation of punishment. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant or his counsel invited the error in this case, or that the error was harmless. Thus, the trial court failed to give appellant the opportunity to exercise his right of allocution, as required by
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 10} Appellant argues the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences without making the findings required by
{¶ 11}
{¶ 13} Here, a review of the record shows the trial court did not make all of the findings required by
Conclusion
{¶ 14} The September 27, 2016 judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas is reversed. This case is hereby remanded to that court for allocution and to consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate and, if so, to enter the proper findings on the record. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellee pursuant to
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.