Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Keil

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District

August 9, 2013

State of Ohio Appellee
v.
Randy Keil Appellant

Trial Court No. CR0201002376

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ian B. English, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

JENSEN, J.

(¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Randy Keil, was convicted by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331. On July 30, 2012, defendant was sentenced to a 30-month prison term and a 25-year driver's license suspension. He now appeals the July 30, 2012 judgment. Appellant asserts that the trial court committed plain error by: (1) failing to specify a start date and the terms and conditions of the license suspension; and (2) considering convictions that occurred after the offense but before the sentencing hearing in determining his sentence. For the reasons that follow we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Facts and Procedural History

(¶ 2} On July 5, 2010, at approximately 2:40 a.m., a highway patrol officer observed defendant-appellant, Randy Keil, operating a motor vehicle on State Route 20A. The officer determined that Keil was traveling at 96 miles per hour in a 55-m.p.h. speed zone. The state trooper activated his lights and sirens in an attempt to initiate a traffic stop. Keil did not comply. A pursuit ensued that involved several state patrol officers. During the chase, Keil ran several stop signs, driving at speeds approaching 100 m.p.h. After three to four minutes, Keil lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a utility pole and a parked car.

(¶ 3} Before police arrived, Keil exited the vehicle and fled the scene. He was arrested approximately two hours later, after the police found him walking alongside the road. Keil had been operating the vehicle with a suspended driver's license while under the influence of alcohol.

(¶ 4} On July 21, 2010, Keil was indicted on one count of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331, a third-degree felony. Keil was scheduled to be arraigned on August 12, 2010, but he failed to appear. The court ordered that a capias be issued. Keil was arrested on the capias on April 2, 2012. He was arraigned on April 9, 2012, and entered a plea of not guilty.

(¶ 5} On July 12, 2012, Keil entered a guilty plea to the indicted charge. The court accepted appellant's plea and ordered a presentence investigation report. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on July 30, 2012. It sentenced Keil to a prison term of 30 months and suspended his driver's license for 25 years. Keil filed this appeal on August 28, 2012, assigning the following two errors for our review.

I. The trial court committed plain error when it did not address the administrative aspects of appellant's driver's license suspension, including the starting date and the terms and conditions, if any, for a lifting of the suspension after the first three years.
II. The trial court committed plain error by considering convictions which occurred after the subject offense as part of the recidivism factor analysis for sentencing purposes in this matter.

II. Analysis

(¶ 6} We review felony sentences under the two-step analysis established in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124. We must first "examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law." Id. at ¶ 4. If the first step is satisfied, we then review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion is "more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.