State v. Mayfield

2024-Ohio-5844 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Seventh Appellate District · December 11, 2024 · No. 24 MA 0071

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion addresses a defendant's direct appeal of her felony sentence for two counts of felonious assault. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by failing to impose a minimum sentence under Ohio's indefinite sentencing scheme. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court properly considered the statutory purposes and factors for sentencing, and that the imposed five-to-seven-and-a-half-year term fell within the authorized statutory range and was not contrary to law.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Seventh Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Katelyn Dickey; Carol Ann Robb; Mark A. Hanni
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 11, 2024
Docket number
24 MA 0071
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed her felony sentence after pleading guilty to two counts of second-degree felonious assault and receiving concurrent indefinite prison terms of five years minimum to seven and one-half years maximum.
Standard of review
Under Ohio Revised Code section 2953.08(G)(2), the appellate court reviews the record and may modify or vacate a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support a statutorily required finding or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law; the review is not for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Cicelia Stormy Mayfield v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingsentencing guidelinesstandard of reviewappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

Ohio criminal sentencingfelony sentencing appealsappellate criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred by failing to impose a minimum sentence.
  2. Whether Mayfield's concurrent indefinite sentences of five years minimum to seven and one-half years maximum were contrary to law under Ohio's felony-sentencing statutes.

Holdings

  1. The trial court was not required to impose a shorter or minimum authorized sentence merely because Mayfield had limited prior criminal behavior, expressed remorse, accepted responsibility, and presented mitigating circumstances.
  2. Mayfield's concurrent indefinite sentences of five years minimum to seven and one-half years maximum were not contrary to law because the trial court considered the required statutory factors, properly advised her regarding post-release control, and imposed a sentence within the authorized range for second-degree felonies.

Key quotations

A sentence is considered to be contrary to law if it falls outside of the statutory range for the particular degree of offense; if the trial court failed to properly consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing as enumerated in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12; or if the trial court orders consecutive sentences and does not make the necessary consecutive sentence finding. (¶ 15)
Accordingly, because the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, and because Appellant’s indefinite prison sentence of five years (minimum) to seven and one-half years (maximum) is within the authorized statutory range for second-degree felonies, her sentence is not contrary to law. (¶ 21)

Factual background

Mayfield attempted to run over one victim after an argument that involved gunfire directed at her vehicle. She stopped and then assaulted a second victim nearby. She pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree felonious assault, and the trial court considered the presentence investigation, victim-impact statement, sentencing materials, criminal history, and a defense video before imposing sentence.

Procedural history

A Mahoning County grand jury indicted Mayfield on six counts. She later pleaded guilty to two counts of felonious assault under a negotiated plea agreement, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas imposed concurrent indefinite prison terms of five years minimum to seven and one-half years maximum. Mayfield appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to impose a minimum sentence.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…