State v. Poole

Citation: 2022 Ohio 2391Docket: 21CA1151

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; July 5, 2022; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jordan Poole appealed his conviction for possession of heroin and operating a vehicle under the influence, for which he received an 18-month prison sentence and a concurrent 180-day jail term after pleading guilty. Poole's appeal argued that the trial court ignored the sentencing guidelines outlined in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, particularly after he expressed a preference for prison over drug rehabilitation. However, both the sentencing entry and the hearing transcript indicated that the court did consider these factors before sentencing, leading to the overruling of his assignment of error and affirmation of the trial court's judgment.

The procedural history reveals that Poole was indicted in April 2021 on multiple drug-related charges and operating a vehicle under the influence. Initially pleading not guilty, he eventually accepted a plea deal in August 2021, resulting in the dismissal of three charges in exchange for guilty pleas to two counts. During three sentencing hearings, Poole requested community control but admitted to not enrolling in drug treatment programs, despite a lengthy criminal history marked by multiple violations of community control and failed rehabilitation attempts. At the November 2021 hearing, he tested positive for drugs, leading to bond revocation and a rescheduling of the sentencing. By December 2021, the trial court, having reviewed a pre-sentence investigation report detailing Poole's extensive criminal background, including two prior felony convictions and numerous community control violations, was presented with a recommendation for a prison sentence from the state.

Poole informed the trial court that he had not participated in the required drug treatment counseling since the September 2021 hearing and requested community control without drug treatment, indicating a preference for prison if that was not possible. He expressed willingness for voluntary outpatient treatment but rejected mandatory inpatient treatment, stating he feared it would not count towards his prison sentence and he could relapse, ultimately leading to prison anyway. Poole articulated a belief that he was likely to "mess up," which the court questioned.

The trial court reviewed Poole’s extensive criminal history, including numerous drug-related convictions and multiple community control violations, and noted unsuccessful attempts to assess him for drug treatment. The court emphasized Poole's pattern of behavior, including committing offenses while under community control, and concluded that he was not amenable to community control sanctions. Consequently, the court sentenced him to 18 months in prison for possession of heroin and 180 days in jail for operating a vehicle under the influence, to be served concurrently.

Poole raised an assignment of error, claiming the trial court failed to consider the sentencing guidelines under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, asserting that the sentence was contrary to law and requesting a remand for a new sentencing hearing. He acknowledged his burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the sentence was unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

Clear and convincing evidence is defined as a standard of proof that exceeds a mere preponderance of the evidence but falls short of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal cases. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court reviewing a sentence must examine the record and findings from the sentencing court. The court can modify or vacate a sentence if it finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings or if the sentence is contrary to law. The Ohio Supreme Court clarified in State v. Jones that appellate courts cannot independently evaluate the overall support for a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and that they are not authorized to conduct an independent sentence evaluation for non-death penalty cases. The appellant, Poole, asserts that his sentence is "contrary to law" because the trial court allegedly failed to consider the statutory purposes and principles of sentencing outlined in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. The Supreme Court has indicated that "contrary to law" is not specifically defined by the General Assembly and refers to a violation of legal statutes or regulations as understood at the time of enactment. The broader provision for appellate review of sentence support was removed from R.C. 2953.08, but the term “otherwise contrary to law” remains applicable, interpreted as a violation of statute or regulations.

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 impose mandatory obligations on trial courts, as indicated by the use of "shall" in the statutes. R.C. 2929.11(A) outlines the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which include public protection, punishment, and rehabilitation of the offender with minimal resource burden. The court must consider factors such as incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution. R.C. 2929.12(A) grants courts discretion in determining the effective means to achieve these purposes while mandating consideration of specified factors regarding the seriousness of the offense and the offender's recidivism likelihood. 

Failure to consider these statutory factors results in a sentence being contrary to law, as established in State v. Wilson. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones indicates that a reviewing court need not verify that a trial court's consideration of these factors is documented in the record; mere consideration suffices. A sentence is deemed contrary to law if the trial court neglects to consider the principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12, but the court is not required to analyze each factor in detail on record.

In the case at hand, the trial court adequately considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when sentencing Poole, discussing relevant factors such as recidivism during the hearing and affirmatively stating in the sentencing entry that it considered the statutory factors, which meets the legal requirements.

The trial court adequately considered the relevant factors of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 during sentencing, as evidenced by its explicit statements regarding recidivism at the hearing. Therefore, Poole's argument to the contrary was rejected, leading to the overruling of his assignment of error and the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. The court orders that the judgment be executed by the Adams County Common Pleas Court, with the appellant responsible for the costs of the appeal. A temporary stay of execution and release on bail, if previously granted, will last for up to 60 days, allowing the appellant to seek a stay from the Supreme Court of Ohio. This stay will end sooner if the appellant does not file a notice of appeal within 45 days or if the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal before the 60-day period concludes. A certified copy of this entry serves as the mandate according to the applicable rules. The document is finalized, and the appeal period starts from the filing date with the clerk.