State v. Croley

2024-Ohio-5904 (7th Dist. 2024) · Ohio Court of Appeals, Seventh Appellate District · December 16, 2024 · No. 24 CO 0011

Summary

This document is a per curiam opinion denying an appellant's application for reconsideration regarding her criminal sentence under Ohio's Reagan Tokes Law. The appellate court previously vacated the trial court's sentence because it miscalculated the maximum term for a second-degree felony count, instructing that it should be 11 years rather than 12 years. The court found no obvious errors in its prior decision and affirmed the denial of reconsideration.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Seventh Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Katelyn Dickey; Cheryl L. Waite; Carol Ann Robb
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 16, 2024
Docket number
24 CO 0011
Procedural posture
Defendant-appellant sought reconsideration under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(A) of the court's prior decision vacating her sentence and remanding for resentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law.
Standard of review
Under App.R. 26(A), reconsideration is appropriate when the application identifies an obvious error in the appellate decision or raises an issue that was not considered, or was not fully considered when it should have been.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Ashley B. Croley v. State of Ohio
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate proceduresentencingcriminal procedurestatutory interpretationstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate practicesentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Croley demonstrated an obvious error or an inadequately considered issue warranting reconsideration under App.R. 26(A).
  2. Whether the prior decision improperly directed the trial court to impose an eleven-year maximum term on count three rather than as the maximum term for the entire sentence.

Holdings

  1. An application for reconsideration must identify an obvious error in the appellate decision or an issue that was not considered, or was not fully considered when it should have been; mere disagreement with the court's reasoning or conclusion is insufficient. Croley failed to make that showing.
  2. For Croley's sentence, the proper calculated maximum term for the qualifying second-degree felony in count three was eleven years, not twelve years; the prior opinion correctly vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, and its reference to the maximum term on count three did not constitute an obvious error.

Key quotations

An application for reconsideration is not designed for use in instances where a party simply disagrees with the conclusions reached and the logic used by an appellate court. (¶ 1)
Upon consideration of the App.R. 26(A) application filed in the present matter, it is apparent that Appellant has not demonstrated any obvious errors or raised any issues that were not adequately addressed in our previous opinion. (¶ 7)

Factual background

Croley was sentenced on three felony counts: escape, a third-degree felony; grand theft of a motor vehicle, a fourth-degree felony; and felonious assault, a second-degree felony qualifying for indefinite sentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law. The trial court imposed a six-year minimum and twelve-year maximum term on the felonious-assault count, with that term consecutive to the escape and grand-theft terms. The appellate court previously determined that the maximum term should have been eleven years and remanded for resentencing.

Procedural history

Croley was convicted of escape, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and felonious assault and received consecutive and concurrent prison terms, including an indefinite six-year-minimum, twelve-year-maximum term for felonious assault. In the prior appeal, the court held that the maximum term was miscalculated, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. Croley then applied for reconsideration, arguing that the prior decision should have directed the trial court to impose an eleven-year maximum term for her whole sentence rather than on count three. The court denied the application.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…