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. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

August 16, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KAITLIN JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Trial Nos. B-1705497-B, B-1706671

         Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded

          Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

          William Gallagher, for Defendant-Appellant.

          OPINION

          CROUSE, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Kaitlin Jackson has appealed her sentences in two cases in which she pled guilty to a string of burglaries and receiving stolen property. In one assignment of error, Jackson argues that the trial court failed to comply with Ohio law and imposed a sentence which was unconstitutionally excessive.

         {¶2} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in order to impose consecutive sentences, and so we vacate the consecutive nature of the sentences and remand the cause for a new sentencing hearing on that issue only. We affirm in all other respects.

         Factual Background

         {¶3} Jackson and her codefendants, Robert Daniel and Roslyn Mills, committed a string of burglaries across Hamilton County to get money for drugs. Daniel burglarized the homes, then Mills and Jackson would pick Daniel up in the getaway car. Jackson would then pawn the stolen items, and the three would split the profits. Jackson claims that her ex-boyfriend introduced her to heroin and then broke up with her, causing her to go into a depression. The two codefendants, associates of the ex-boyfriend, then moved in with Jackson, and the three began burglarizing homes to support their drug habits.

         {¶4} As part of a plea deal, Jackson pled guilty to one count of second-degree-felony burglary, four counts of third-degree-felony burglary, and three counts of fourth-degree-felony receiving stolen property.

         {¶5} The court sentenced Jackson to eight years on the second-degree burglary and two years on one of the third-degree burglaries, to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of ten years. The remaining third-degree burglaries netted sentences of three years each, to be served concurrently with the ten-year sentence. Jackson received 18 months on each of the three counts of receiving stolen property, to be served concurrently with the ten-year sentence.

         {¶6} Jackson contends that the trial court's seriousness and recidivism findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were erroneous, and that her sentence shocks the sense of justice in the community such that it violates the Ohio Constitution.

         R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and Appellate Review of Felony Sentences

         {¶7} An Ohio appellate court's review of criminal sentences is quite limited. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2):

The appellate court may [increase, reduce, otherwise modify, or vacate a sentence] if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

         {¶8} In State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), this court interpreted R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) to mean that we may only modify or vacate a defendant's sentence "if we 'clearly and convincingly find' that either (1) the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, or (2) that the sentence is 'otherwise contrary to law.'" (Emphasis added.) Subsequently, in State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." (Emphasis added.) Later in the opinion, the court noted:

some sentences do not require findings that R.C. 2953.08(G) specifically addresses. Nevertheless, it is fully consistent for appellate courts to review those sentences that are imposed solely after consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 under a standard that is equally deferential to the sentencing court. That is, an appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence.

(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 23.

         {¶9} Since Marcum, this court has held that an appellate court may modify or vacate a felony sentence "only if it 'clearly and convincingly finds' that the record does not support the mandatory sentencing findings, if any, or that the sentence is 'otherwise contrary to law.'" (Emphasis added.) State v. Brown, 1st Dist. ...


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.