State v. Mathis
| Decision Date | 27 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2004-1171.,No. 2004-1267.,2004-1171.,2004-1267. |
| Citation | 846 N.E.2d 1,109 Ohio St.3d 54,2006 Ohio 855 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. MATHIS, Appellee. The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Fair, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and T. Allan Regas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Thomas Rein, Cleveland, for appellee Preston Mathis.
Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee Dwayne Fair.
{¶ 1} We accepted discretionary appeals and consolidated these two cases that questioned whether the court of appeals may order a limited remand for necessary statutory findings to be placed on the record or whether it must vacate the sentence and remand for a de novo sentencing hearing.
{¶ 2} Appellees Preston Mathis and Dwayne Fair were each convicted of multiple offenses and received maximum and consecutive prison terms. The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County found that the trial courts failed at the sentencing hearings to make oral findings or state reasons to justify either maximum or consecutive sentences. State v. Mathis, 8th Dist. No. 83311, 2004-Ohio-2982, 2004 WL 1277488, at ¶ 52-53; State v. Fair, 8th Dist. No. 82278, 2004-Ohio-2971, 2004 WL 1277153, at ¶ 42, 44, and 66. Instead of simply remanding the cases for the limited purpose of requiring a statement of those findings pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(1), the appellate courts vacated the sentences and required the trial courts to sentence anew, with complete sentencing hearings. Mathis, ¶ 52-53; Fair, ¶ 80.
{¶ 3} We affirm, but on the basis of our holding in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, and we remand each case to the trial court for resentencing.
{¶ 4} Preston Mathis was sentenced on July 16, 2003, to maximum prison terms of 18 months on a conviction for gross sexual imposition and 12 months for importuning, the sentences to be served consecutively. Mathis was also classified as a sexual predator. He appealed his conviction, sentence, and sexual-predator classification. The court of appeals determined that the state had presented sufficient evidence of guilt and that the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It also found no error in the sexual-predator classification.
{¶ 5} In reviewing the propriety of maximum and consecutive prison terms, the appellate court examined statements made by the judge in the transcript of the sentencing hearing. The trial court said that Mathis had stalked the victim, that he had "scammed" her and her parents, and that he was a threat to society as a probable reoffender. The court of appeals ruled that a maximum sentence had been correctly imposed. 2004-Ohio-2982 at ¶ 45-46. However, it found reversible error because the trial court had failed to make one of the findings on the record that was required under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)(a) through (c) before imposing consecutive sentences. Id. at ¶ 53.
{¶ 6} Prior to Foster, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) required additional judicial findings before an offender could be sentenced to serve multiple prison terms consecutively. The sentencing court was required to find that (1) the consecutive terms are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender, (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and the danger the offender poses to the public, and (3) either that (a) the offense was committed while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing or was under postrelease control, or (b) the harm was so great or unusual that no single prison term would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offender's conduct, or (c) the offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime. R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)(a) through (c). Additionally, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) required the court to give its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.
{¶ 7} In attempting to comply with these statutory requirements, the Mathis trial court had stated, "The maximum sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime," and "I don't believe consecutive sentences in this case will be disproportionate to the danger that you raise to the public, including the fact that you've scored in the 26 percent of men who will re-offend within the short 5 years." The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County found that the trial court had failed to make one of the additional findings required by R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)(a) through (c).1 The appellate court consequently vacated the entire sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.
{¶ 8} After a jury trial in October 2001, Dwayne Fair was convicted of one count of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of cocaine. He was initially sentenced to consecutive prison terms for an aggregate sentence of 11 years: two years on count one, a maximum term of eight years on count two, and a maximum of 12 months on count three. Fair appealed his conviction and the consecutive nature of his sentence. State v. Fair, 8th Dist. No. 80501, 2002-Ohio-5561, 2002 WL 31319117. The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. In ruling in favor of Fair, the court of appeals noted the following statement by the trial court:
{¶ 9} "Now, regarding the consecutive sentences, I find that running this time consecutive is necessary to protect the public from future crime. * * * [I]t's necessary to punish you for the seriousness of your offense. I do not find an 11-year sentence for trafficking in an operation this large to be disproportionate for the seriousness of your conduct.
{¶ 10} "I further find that the harm was so great or unusual that a single term would not and does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct." State v. Fair, 2002-Ohio-5561, at ¶ 26-27.
{¶ 11} The appellate court concluded that the above statement contained the findings required for imposing consecutive sentences, but did not contain the required reasons.
{¶ 12} On remand, the trial court adopted its previous findings and stated further reasons for imposing consecutive sentences:
{¶ 13} "The court has reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals and the court adopts its findings made at its original sentencing.
{¶ 14} "The court does find that you have not served a prior prison term, however, [the] minimum term would demean the seriousness of this offense in the case. You were part of a deal in which undercover agent Drake of the North Royalton Police department purchased nearly four ounces of cocaine from you and your co-defendant.
{¶ 15} "Your co-defendant is serving 12 years in the Federal penitentiary. This four ounce purchase was the biggest drug bust in North Royalton history. I find consecutive terms necessary to protect the public and more so to punish the offender. You were convicted of crimes involving two separate incidents, the possession of cocaine on the mirror in the house and then the trafficking deal that took place in North Royalton. This shows to me that you are a user of cocaine as well as a seller of cocaine.
{¶ 16} "I find consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense. And I do find that the harm in this case was so great and unusual that no single prison term would adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct.
{¶ 17} "As far as reasons go, again, as far as harm created, it's unusual that a single prison term would reflect the seriousness of the conduct. This was the biggest drug bust in North Royalton history that you were part of. I find sentences should be consistent, your co-defendant is serving 12 years in Federal penitentiary for his involvement at the time.
{¶ 18} "You do bring up, however, your sentence is unfair considering, alleging that he is a much worse person. On the other hand, [your co-defendant] did not have the advances in life that you had. You grew up in University Heights, went to fine schools. You have loving and caring parents who are here to support you. And you choose in life to become a drug dealer, when you had all kinds of other opportunities facing you.
{¶ 19}
{¶ 20} The trial court then imposed the same sentence it had originally imposed.
{¶ 21} Reviewing Fair's second sentence, the court of appeals determined that the trial court could not adopt its previous sentencing statements for the resentencing hearing. 2004-Ohio-2971, at ¶ 16. Although the state had argued for a limited remand for the statutory findings required for consecutive prison terms under R.C. 2953.08(G)(1), the court of appeals rejected that idea. Id. at ¶ 18. The Eighth District interpreted R.C. 2953.08(G)(1) to require a remand for resentencing rather than clarification of the sentence.2 Id. at ¶ 37. In other words, a sentencing hearing was to be held de novo on remand. Id. at ¶ 18. Because the trial court could not rely on its adopted findings, after reviewing the transcript, the Eighth District concluded that the trial court omitted the second of the three findings required by R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) for consecutive sentences. The trial court had failed to find that consecutive sentences were "not disproportionate" to the "danger the defendant poses to the public." Id. at ¶ 42. The appellate court also held that the proffered reasons for consecutive sentences were not sufficient to support the findings. Id. at ¶ 42-44.
{¶ 22} With respect to Fair's maximum prison terms, the Eighth District noted that the record was silent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schweitzer v. Williams, Case No. 3:08 CV 2250.
... ... In 2006, in light of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006), Petitioner was re-sentenced to these same terms of incarceration. Petitioner now argues the ... State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 62, 846 N.E.2d 1 (2006). 2 This result, according to the Ohio Supreme Court, best approximated the will of the legislature ... ...
-
Van Le v. Beightler
... ... Facts ... In a habeas corpus proceeding instituted by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, factual determinations made by state courts “shall be presumed to be correct.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also ... House v. Bell, ... State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 62, 846 N.E.2d 1 (2006). 4 This result, according to the Ohio Supreme Court, best approximated the will of the legislature ... ...
-
State v. Sekulic
... ... However, although Foster eliminated mandatory judicial fact-finding, it left intact R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the trial court must still consider these statutes. Kalish at 13, see also State v. Mathis , 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1 ; State v. Firouzmandi supra at 29. { 132} Thus, post- Foster , "there is no mandate for judicial fact-finding in the general guidance statutes. The court is merely to consider the statutory factors." 92 N.E.3d 255 Foster at 42. State v ... ...
-
State v. Wilson
... ... However, although Foster eliminated mandatory judicial fact-finding, it left intact R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the trial court must still consider these statutes. Kalish at 13, see also State v. Mathis , 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1 ; State v. Firouzmandisupra at 29. { 59} Thus, post Foster , "there is no mandate for judicial fact-finding in the general guidance statutes. The court is merely to consider the statutory factors." Foster at 42. State v. Rutter , 5th ... ...