State v. Hammonds

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, affirmed Randell Hammonds’s aggregate prison sentences for felony offenses committed while he was under post-release-control supervision. The court held that, because Hammonds did not object at sentencing, review was limited to plain error, and found no plain error in the trial court’s consideration of Ohio sentencing statutes or imposition of consecutive terms.

Holdings

1. When a criminal defendant does not object to a sentence after being given a meaningful opportunity to raise the issue in the trial court, the sentencing challenge is forfeited and the appellate court reviews only for plain error.
2. Plain error must be apparent on the record, palpable, and fundamental, and notice of plain error is reserved for exceptional circumstances necessary to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.
3. A felony sentence is not contrary to law when it falls within the statutory range and the trial court considers the purposes of felony sentencing and the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors; the court need not state its reasons for selecting a particular sentence within the statutory range or use specific language or make specific findings to demonstrate that consideration.
4. The consecutive sentences and additional 12-month sentence imposed for new felony offenses committed while Hammonds was under post-release control were not contrary to law because the applicable statutes required or authorized the consecutive terms and the trial court made the required consecutive-sentence findings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hammonds forfeited review of his sentencing challenge by failing to object after the trial court announced the sentence.
2. Whether the trial court committed plain error by imposing felony sentences above the minimum terms without adequately considering the purposes of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.
3. Whether the imposed prison terms, consecutive sentences, and additional post-release-control sanction were contrary to law.

Disposition

affirmed