State v. Pringle

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Jack Pringle’s convictions and sentences for two counts of menacing by stalking and one count of violating a protection order. The court held that it could not review the appellant’s arguments concerning the trial court’s consideration of Ohio Revised Code sections 2929.11 and 2929.12, and that those provisions do not apply to appellate review of consecutive sentences.

Holdings

1. An appellate court may not review, as a matter of law, whether a trial court erred in considering R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when imposing a sentence.
2. R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 do not apply to appellate review of consecutive sentences.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court could review Pringle's claim that the trial court failed to comply with the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.
2. Whether R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 provide a basis for appellate review of the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences.

Disposition

affirmed