State v. Daniel, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2001)
This text of State v. Daniel, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2001) (State v. Daniel, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF FACT THAT IN COMMITTING THE OFFENSE, THE OFFENDER CAUSED PHYSICAL HARM TO A PERSON (R.C.
2929.13 (B)(1)) IS (A) NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY RECORD EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, (B) IS IRRELEVANT TO SENTENCING FOR A THIRD DEGREE FELONY, (C) IS IRRELEVANT TO SENTENCING FOR INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER BASED UPON AN PREDICATE OFFENSE OF MISDEMEANOR DRUG ABUSE, AND (D) IS BARRED BY THE LAW OF THIS CASE BASED UPON THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISION ABSENT SOME NEW EVIDENCE. AS A RESULT THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCING VIOLATES MR. McDANIEL'S STATUTORY RIGHTS AND HIS RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE I. SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS THEFIFTH ,SIXTH ,EIGHTH ANDFOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
The trial court found that McDaniel caused physical harm to a person, triggering the three-year community control requirement of R.C.
McDaniel argues that the trial court erred when it made its physical harm finding pursuant to division (B)(1)(a) of R.C.
McDaniel's remaining arguments under this section are each predicated on his claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that he caused physical harm to the victim. That claim, in turn, relies on our previous holding in State v. McDaniel (2001),
The misdemeanor underlying McDaniel's conviction for involuntary manslaughter was permitting drug abuse. R.C.
On remand, the court imposed a four year sentence, not a five year sentence. The court imposed its sentence, at least in part, in consideration of its finding that McDaniel had caused physical harm to the victim. McDaniel argues that the court again abused its discretion by relying on the same uncharged misconduct. We do not agree.
The trial court did not again find that McDaniel had committed the worst form of involuntary manslaughter. Rather, it found in committing that offense he had caused physical harm to a person. McDaniel claims that the court necessarily relied on the same uncharged misconduct. The court didn't explain the basis for its finding, and instead merely checked-off a pre-printed box on its sentencing entry so indicating.
The court wasn't required to explain the basis for its finding or to consider the uncharged misconduct that was a concern in the previous case in order to find that the Defendant caused physical harm to a person. Involuntary manslaughter, R.C.
The first assignment of error is overruled.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE DEFENDANT'S SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE BY CONCLUDING THAT A THREE YEAR PERIOD OF POST RELEASE CONTROL WAS MANDATORY AND BY IMPOSING SAME.
Pursuant to R.C.
We have found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that McDaniel had caused physical harm to a person.
The second assignment of error is overruled.
BROGAN, J. and YOUNG, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Daniel, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2001), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-daniel-unpublished-decision-12-28-2001-ohioctapp-2001.