2005 Ohio 1104 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2005
Lead Opinion
{¶ 2} On January 23, 3003, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury charged Newsome with six felony counts, including attempted murder, felonious assault, burglary, vandalism, escape, and breaking and entering. The charges arose from a January 12, 2003 incident wherein Newsome forced his way into the home of Hargis Hall ("Hall") and stabbed Hall during a subsequent altercation. After his arrest, Newsome broke free from his holding cell at Ashtabula City Jail. Upon arraignment, Newsome pled not guilty to the charges.
{¶ 3} On March 23, 2003, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Newsome pled guilty to Felonious Assault, a second-degree felony under R.C.
{¶ 4} On May 16, 2003, Newsome appeared for his sentencing hearing. The trial court proceeded to sentence Newsome to eight years in prison under the felonious assault charge and two years under the escape charge, to be served consecutively. The court ordered that these sentences be served consecutively to two consecutive 12-month sentences imposed as the result of a trial held the previous day in Case Number 2002-CR-332, wherein Newsome was charged, under R.C.
{¶ 5} Newsome timely appealed, asserting a single assignment of error:
{¶ 6} "The trial court erred in ordering appellant's sentences be served consecutively."
{¶ 7} Newsome does not challenge the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences for the felonious assault and escape charges, since R.C.
{¶ 8} An appellate court reviews a felony sentence under a clear and convincing evidence standard of review. R.C.
{¶ 9} To impose consecutive sentences on a defendant, R.C.
{¶ 10} In addition, this court has stated that "R.C.
{¶ 11} When a trial court makes its findings under the sentencing statutes, only substantial compliance with the language of the sentencing statutes is required, as long as adequate reasons are given to support the court's findings. See, State v. Wilson, 11th Dist. No. 2002-L-023, 2003-Ohio-4599, at ¶ 14 ("R.C.
{¶ 12} Newsome concedes the court found and adequately supported, under R.C.
{¶ 13} However, Newsome believes that the court failed to give reasons in support of its finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and the danger the offender poses to the public. He argues that while the court adequately supported its findings in terms of the punishment being proportional to the seriousness of his crime, it failed to support its finding that the punishment was not disproportionate to the danger he presents to the public.
{¶ 14} This court has stated, "[u]nder the second finding, the court must address both the seriousness of the immediate conduct and danger the offender poses to the public. The proportionality inquiry is conjunctive and thus a lack of `disproportionality' must be found with respect to both seriousness and danger to the public." Wilson, 2003-Ohio-4599, at ¶ 12 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
{¶ 15} Upon careful review of the record, we find that in relation to consecutive sentences being proportional to the seriousness of the crime, the court found specifically that there was serious harm to the victim, the attack occurred in his home, and that the attack was unprovoked. The court also found that there was evidence that Newsome had taken some drug prior to the incident, and "that's an aggravating factor." The court also stated that "in a certain sense, [Newsome] was lucky that Mr. Hall didn't die or it would have been a murder case and you have received the benefit of the plea negotiation to make this a second degree felony, Felonious assault." Looking at these facts as a whole, the court concluded that any other means of sentencing would "not be commensurate with the seriousness of [Newsome's] conduct."
{¶ 16} With respect to the necessity of imposing consecutive sentences being commensurate with the danger Newsome posed to the public, the court found specifically that, the serious harm caused to the victim, along with the fact that Newsome had "a number of prior assault convictions and other offenses of violence," it would "not be sufficient to protect to protect the public if I ran these sentences in any other way." These findings clearly and convincingly address the proportionality requirement of 2929.14(E)(4) as to both the seriousness of Newsome's crimes and the danger he poses to the public.
{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, Newsome's assignment of error is without merit. The judgment of the Ashtabula Court of Common Pleas imposing consecutive sentences is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurs,
WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., dissents with a Dissenting Opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
{¶ 18} I must respectfully dissent. I believe the trial court's imposition of a sentence running consecutive to the sentence imposed the prior day violated appellant's Sixth Amendment rights pursuant the United States Supreme Court's holding in Blakely v. Washington.
{¶ 19} In enacting Senate Bill 2, with an effective date of July 1, 1996, the Ohio General Assembly radically altered its approach to criminal sentencing. The new law essentially designated three classes of citizens who would have statutorily defined roles in determining the amount of time an individual would be incarcerated for a particular crime. The three classes defined were: (1) the Ohio General Assembly; (2) judges; and (3) jurors.
{¶ 20} Senate Bill 2 also provided three distinct areas of judicial limitations when it set about its task of providing "truth in sentencing." Those would be: (1) sentences imposed beyond the minimum; (2) sentences imposing the maximum; and (3) consecutive sentences. The objective was apparently to provide a degree of consistency and predictability in sentencing.
{¶ 21} It is clear that the legislature did not interfere with the role of juries to determine guilt. Thus, the first task in sentencing went to juries. In the second phase, the legislature reserved unto itself the role of establishing minimum sentences that would be imposed once the finding of guilt, either by trial or admission, was accomplished. And finally, the new law set forth the "findings" that were required before a judge would be permitted to depart from the minimum or impose consecutive sentences. Thus, everyone had a clearly defined role to play.
{¶ 22} The first major pronouncement by the Ohio Supreme Court concerned the "findings" necessary to support the imposition of a maximum sentence. In Edmondson, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a trial court must "make a finding that gives its reasons" on the record for the imposition of a maximum sentence.1
{¶ 23} Following that pronouncement, the Supreme Court of Ohio, inState v. Comer, required the sentencing courts to make their "findings" and give reasons supporting those findings on the record "at the sentencing hearing."2 Thus, it is clear that the courts, in applying Senate Bill 2, imposed duties upon judges to make specific findings to support their sentences whenever they went beyond the minimum; or imposed maximum sentences or consecutive sentences.
{¶ 24} In 2004, however, the United States Supreme Court issued its judgment in Blakely v. Washington and made it clear that judges making "findings" outside a jury's determinations in sentencing violated constitutional guarantees.3 Specifically, the court held:
{¶ 25} "Our precedents make clear, however, that the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may imposesolely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict oradmitted by the defendant. * * * In other words, the relevant `statutory maximum' is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. When a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts `which the law makes essential to the punishment,' * * * and the judge exceeds his proper authority."4
{¶ 26} Thus, it is clear that the statutory judicial "findings," which provide the framework for all sentencing in Ohio, are prohibited by the United States Supreme Court.
{¶ 27} Following the United States Supreme Court's release ofBlakely, this court determined that a trial court's reliance on a previous conviction as evidenced in the record would still be permissible for the purpose of imposing a sentence greater than the minimum.5 As stated by this court in State v. Taylor:
{¶ 28} "Under R.C.
{¶ 29} It is clear that, for Blakely purposes, a trial court is permitted to take judicial notice that a defendant has served a prior prison term, for that is not a "finding." It is a judicial acknowledgement of an indisputable fact. The trial court merely acknowledges the prior prison term and does not have to weigh conflicting evidence to make a factual finding. As such, a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are not compromised by the exercise.
{¶ 30} Other courts have taken a more literal approach to this question, particularly in the area of maximum and consecutive sentences. I believe the Eighth District Court of Appeals properly applied theBlakely standard when it held:
{¶ 31} "This standard, however, must now be assessed in light of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Blakely v. Washington, * * * which states that the `statutory maximum' is not the longest term the defendant can receive under any circumstances, but is `the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.'8 The jury did not make a finding that Quinones had committed a worst form of the offense or that he posed the greatest likelihood of recidivism, nor did he admit to either. * * * Therefore, the sentences * * * must be vacated and remanded for resentencing in light of Blakely."9
{¶ 32} I believe that a distinction must be made between "findings," which courts make to justify maximum or consecutive sentences and "acknowledging" the existence of a prior sentence in a criminal matter, which would permit the court to exercise its discretion in departing from a minimum sentence. Clearly, Blakely no longer permits courts in Ohio to "find" that a defendant has committed the "worst form of the offense" or that his actions predict the "greatest likelihood of recidivism" without either an admission by the defendant or a finding by the trier of fact.
{¶ 33} As so eloquently stated by the United States Supreme Court inBlakely:
{¶ 34} "This case is not about whether determinate sentencing is constitutional, only about how it can be implemented in a way that respects the Sixth Amendment."10
{¶ 35} The court went on to state that the Sixth Amendment was not a "limitation of judicial power, but a reservation of jury power."11 In what I believe to be the true thrust of this landmark case, the United States Supreme Court finally held that "[t]he framers would not have thought it too much to demand that, before depriving a man of three more years of his liberty, the State should suffer the modest inconvenience of submitting its accusation to the `unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours,' * * * rather than a lone employee of the state."12
{¶ 36} This case is unique in that the consecutive sentences for the crimes charged, felonious assault and escape, are clearly mandatory by virtue of R.C.
{¶ 37} In conclusion, I believe the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to consecutive sentences for the felonious assault charge and the earlier-imposed, consecutive twelve-month sentences for the convictions of assault on a peace officer. In order to impose these sentences consecutively, the court was required to make "findings" concerning the "seriousness" of the crimes. That is the precise exercise I believe is prohibited by the United States Supreme Court. I would hold that trial courts are only permitted to impose consecutive sentences based upon facts admitted by the defendant or found by the trier of fact.