State v. Deer

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Greene County · 2024 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawFelony SentencingMaximum SentencesConsecutive SentencesR.C. 2929.11R.C. 2929.12R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)

Facts

Deer pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to five aggravated-trafficking-in-drugs counts and one tampering-with-evidence count, all felonies of the third degree, and the remaining counts were dismissed. At sentencing, the trial court imposed 36 months on five counts and 12 months on one count, ordering three counts to run consecutively for an aggregate 84-month sentence. The court stated that it had considered the record, the presentence investigation report, oral statements, and the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. The presentence investigation report reflected a lengthy criminal history dating back to 1995, including prior drug-related felonies, domestic violence, attempted felonious assault, revocation of community control, prior prison terms, and that Deer was serving a jail sentence on community control in another drug case when he entered his plea.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by imposing maximum prison terms without adequately considering R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, and whether the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were unsupported by the record.

Rule

A felony sentence is contrary to law if it falls outside the statutory range or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12. A trial court may impose any sentence within the statutory range and need not make findings or give reasons for maximum sentences, so long as the record demonstrates consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. For consecutive sentences, the trial court must make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the hearing and incorporate them into the entry, and on appeal those findings must be upheld unless clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, Lena Ortiz pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony theft offense. At sentencing, the judge imposed the longest prison term authorized for that offense, stated that he had reviewed the presentence investigation report and oral statements, and expressly said he had considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, but he did not explain why the maximum term was warranted.

On appeal, Lena argues the sentence is contrary to law because the judge gave no reasons for choosing the maximum term. How should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. A felony sentence is contrary to law if it is outside the statutory range or if the court fails to consider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. But the court may impose any sentence within the authorized range and need not make findings or give reasons for imposing a maximum sentence. Here, the judge expressly stated he considered the PSI, oral statements, and R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, so the sentence should be affirmed. (Derived from State v. Deer (n.d.).)