State v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 12 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1340,83-1340
• Citation: 14 OBR 511,14 Ohio St.3d 74,471 N.E.2d 774
• Parties: , 14 O.B.R. 511 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BEASLEY, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 74

14 Ohio St.3d 74

471 N.E.2d 774, 14 O.B.R. 511

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BEASLEY, Appellant.

No. 83-1340.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 12, 1984.

Arthur M. Ney, Jr., Pros. Atty., and Leonard Kirschner, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.

William D. Cunningham, Columbus, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The question before this court is whether the trial court's erroneous imposition of a sentence less severe than the statutory minimum, and later correction of that sentence, violated the defendant's constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. This guarantee serves an individual's interest in the finality of his sentence and protects against multiple punishments, as well as multiple prosecutions, for the same offense. Benton v. Maryland (1969), 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707. For the following reasons, however, we hold that jeopardy has not attached in this case, and that society's interest in enforcing the law, and in meting out the punishment the legislature has deemed just, must be served.

The function and duty of a court is to apply the law as written. R.C. 5145.01 states that the court shall impose no term of imprisonment " * * * less than the minimum term provided [by statute] for such felony."

This court in Colegrove v. Burns (1964), 175 Ohio St. 437, 438, 195 N.E.2d 811 , described the role of a trial judge in sentencing a convicted criminal:

" * * * Crimes are statutory, as are the penalties therefor, and the only sentence which a trial judge may impose is that provided for by statute * * *. A court has no power to substitute a different sentence for that provided for by law."

Any attempt by a court to disregard statutory requirements when imposing a sentence renders the attempted sentence a nullity or void. The applicable sentencing statute in this case, R.C. 2929.11, mandates a two to fifteen year prison term and an optional fine for felonious assault. The trial court disregarded the statute and imposed only a fine. In doing so the trial court exceeded its authority and this sentence must be considered void. Jeopardy did not attach to the void sentence, and, therefore, the court's imposition of the correct sentence did not constitute double jeopardy.

The United States Supreme Court addressed a question similar to the one posed in the case at bar in Ex parte United States (1916), 242 U.S. 27, 37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129. In that case the court denied a trial judge the power to indefinitely suspend a mandatory prison sentence. The court reasoned that it is the function of a court to construe statutes, not to defeat them. Clemency is a function of the...