Summary
This Ohio Court of Appeals decision reviews the criminal convictions and sentencing of Larry Jason Farmer for attempted murder, felonious assault, and improperly discharging a firearm. Farmer appealed on grounds including lack of jury instructions on defense of another, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing errors regarding consecutive sentences and offense merger. The appellate court sustained one assignment of error regarding the trial court's failure to make required statutory findings for consecutive sentences, rendering other sentencing arguments moot, and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on defense of another.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue more persuasively for a defense-of-another instruction and by pursuing an inferior-degree-offense instruction instead.
- Whether the trial court imposed consecutive sentences without making the findings required by Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14(C)(4).
- Whether the trial court failed to merge allied offenses and improperly imposed a sentence on a merged offense.
- Whether Farmer's convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Holdings
- The trial court properly refused to give a defense-of-another instruction because the evidence was legally insufficient to support the required elements of that defense.
- Farmer failed to establish ineffective assistance because, even assuming deficient performance, he could not show prejudice from counsel's failure to advocate for an instruction that the evidence did not warrant.
- The consecutive sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to make all findings required by Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry.
- The convictions for attempted murder, felonious assault, and improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key quotations
“Defense of another is a variation of self-defense. Under certain circumstances, one may employ appropriate force to defend another individual against an assault.” (¶ 51)
“In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry” (¶ 65)
Factual background
Farmer and his father went armed to a trailer where they expected to find Steven Kisor concerning a dispute over a truck. During a confrontation outside the trailer, Kisor struck Farmer's father with a baseball bat while retreating, and Farmer fired multiple shots; the evidence included video footage, shell casings, and bullet holes in the trailer and a vehicle. Farmer claimed that he fired warning shots in defense of his father, but the video and testimony showed the Farmers advancing toward Kisor and continuing the armed confrontation after Kisor retreated.
Procedural history
A Jackson County grand jury indicted Farmer on attempted aggravated murder, felonious assault, improper discharge of a firearm at or into a habitation, intimidation, and retaliation counts, with firearm specifications. The State amended the attempted aggravated murder charge to attempted murder, and the trial court entered a nolle prosequi on the intimidation and retaliation counts. After a jury convicted Farmer on the remaining charges, the trial court merged attempted murder and felonious assault but imposed consecutive sentences without making all findings required by Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14(C)(4). The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and vacated the sentence in part, remanding for resentencing.
Remand instructions
The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing, including reconsideration of the sentence under the applicable statutory provisions. The court did not reach the remaining sentencing arguments concerning merger because they were moot in light of the remand.