Login | March 29, 2024

Summit County court made proper findings for resentencing

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: July 29, 2015

In the 9th District Court of Appeals, a panel of three judges recently ruled that an Akron man was properly resentenced to consecutive prison terms for his role in a robbery, but it held that the man’s trial court could not impose a no contact order with that prison sentence.

The defendant, Doylyn Clayton Jr., appealed from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas where he was sentenced to a total of 16 years in prison after a jury found him guilty on two counts of aggravated robbery and two accompanying firearm specifications.

Case summary states that Clayton posted a sham advertisement on Craigslist in 2012 regarding the sale of a car.

When a married couple expressed interest in the ad, they were “lured” to an Akron residence where three men with guns were waiting to rob them.

Court documents state that Clayton was identified using information posted on the Craigslist ad. During police interviews, he admitted to posting the ad, being present during the robbery and splitting the proceeds of that robbery, which amounted to $450 and the victims’ personal effects.

Clayton’s co-defendants were never identified, but he denied that they were holding real guns, claiming that the alleged firearms were BB guns.

After Clayton’s trial and sentencing, he appealed his case to the 9th District court, where the reviewing panel of judges found that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings in support of its decision to impose consecutive sentences.

The case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing where the Summit County court again imposed consecutive sentences, this time making the findings required by statute.

Appealing to the 9th District court a second time, Clayton revived the argument he made in his first appeal and claimed that his trial court failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14 when it imposed consecutive sentences.

“This court disagrees,” Judge Donna Carr wrote in the opinion on behalf of the court of appeals. “A review of the transcript from the resentencing hearing reveals that, after imposing sentence on each count of aggravated robbery, as well as the attendant firearm specifications, the trial court determined it was necessary to run the sentences consecutively.”

According to the procedural summary of the hearing, the trial court stated on the record that the two aggravated robbery offenses involved two separate victims and that the harm caused by Clayton’s offenses was so great that no single prison term would accurately reflect the seriousness of his conduct.

“After underscoring some of the particularly distressing details of the incident, the trial court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and necessary to punish the defendant,” Carr wrote. “The trial court further found that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the criminal conduct or to the danger the defendant poses to the community.”

In his appellate brief, Clayton maintained that the trial court used a “comprehensive sentencing plan” that was unlawful. According to him, the trial court was focused on whether or not Clayton committed his crime while he was under a sanction but, when it found out that he did not, it “shifted its attention.”

This shift, Clayton argued, demonstrated that the trial court went into the resentencing hearing with the “predetermined intention” of imposing the same 16-year prison sentence that it had originally ordered.

“Clayton’s sentencing package argument is without merit,” Carr wrote, noting that sentencing packages are unlawful under Ohio law because they ignore the sentencing schemes set forth by the Revised Code.

But, in Clayton’s case, the appellate panel held that the trial court took “deliberate steps” to ensure that it was in compliance with R.C. 2929.14.

“While it is true that the trial court inquired of the parties whether Clayton was under a sanction at the time of the offenses, this does not demonstrate that the trial court utilized a comprehensive sentencing plan,” Carr wrote, overruling Clayton’s first assignment of error.

The appellate panel did side with Clayton on his second and final assignment of error, where he argued that the trial court should not have imposed a prison sentence and a no contact order.

“The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that ‘a trial court cannot impose a prison term and a no contact order for the same felony offense,’” Carr wrote.

In that case, the high court noted that no contact orders are community control sanctions, which the General Assembly intended to be alternative to prison sentences.

“Accordingly, this matter must be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Carr concluded.

Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal and Judge Julie Schafer joined Carr to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Clayton, 2015-Ohio-2499.

Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]