State v. King

2024 Ohio 5347

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 8, 2024
• Docket: 30111
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. King, 2024-Ohio-5347.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 30111 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CR 00613 : AMANDA SUE KING : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on November 8, 2024

JOHNNA M. SHIA, Attorney for Appellant

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee

.............

EPLEY, P.J.

{¶ 1} Amanda Sue King appeals from her conviction in the Montgomery County

Court of Common Pleas for aggravated vehicular homicide, in violation of R.C.

2903.06(A)(2)(a), a third-degree felony. She claims that her maximum 60-month prison -2-

sentence was contrary to law. For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment will

be affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In April 2023, King was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide based on

her having caused the death of another through the reckless operation of her vehicle on

October 21, 2022. The 72-year-old victim was killed when King hit her vehicle while

traveling over 90 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.

{¶ 3} King pled not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) and, after a competency

evaluation, she was found to be incompetent to stand trial. After she was restored to

competency, the court ordered a sanity evaluation related to the NGRI plea, which was

completed.

{¶ 4} On March 19, 2024, King pled guilty to the aggravated vehicular homicide,

as well as two unrelated charges in two other cases – Montgomery C.P. Nos. 2023 CR

566 (aggravated possession of drugs) and 2023 CR 1187 (harassment by an inmate –

bodily substance). The trial court accepted King’s pleas and ordered a presentence

investigation. Defense counsel submitted a sentencing memorandum, which detailed

King’s severe mental health issues around the time of the offense, other challenges that

King had faced, her improved mental health following treatment, and her deep remorse

for the fatal car crash. King also sent an apology letter to the court.

{¶ 5} On April 11, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing for the aggravated

vehicular homicide case and King’s two other pending cases. After hearing from defense

counsel and the crash victim’s son and daughter, the trial court reviewed the relevant -3-

sentencing statutes. The court indicated that, in sentencing King, it must be guided by

the purposes of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11, and it explained what those were.

{¶ 6} Next, the court explained that it must consider the seriousness and recidivism

factors in R.C. 2929.12. It found King’s conduct was more serious because the victim

suffered serious physical harm (in this case, death), and no factors indicated the conduct

was less serious. The court also found three factors indicating that recidivism was more

likely: (1) King was under supervision through pretrial services when the offense occurred,

(2) King had been on probation for other criminal offenses, and (3) King demonstrated a

pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that was related to the offense and she refused to

acknowledge that pattern or refused treatment. As to factors indicating that King was

less likely to commit future crimes, the trial court noted that King did not have any juvenile

adjudications and she showed genuine remorse for causing the victim’s death.

{¶ 7} The trial court continued:

This case that the Court has currently before it is a terrible, awful,

and tragic case. A 72-year-old mother was senselessly and tragically killed

and suddenly taken from her family without any opportunity for them to say

goodbye . . . , leaving them obviously heartbroken and grief stricken as

we’ve seen here today. Ms. White did not stand a chance against a car

that was speeding over 90 miles an hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.

This is every person’s worst nightmare. Minding your own business,

obeying traffic laws, when someone needlessly and senselessly breaks the

law and crashes into you unsuspectingly, leaving you no chance -4-

whatsoever to save yourself from a speeding deadly weapon. Ms. White’s

family did not deserve the pain that they’re suffering through right now losing

their mother. And Ms. White did not deserve to die that day.

On the other side of this coin, I have in front of me a person with a

documented severe mental illness who fell through the cracks and did not

receive the adequate treatment through hospitalization and medication

through our community that she so desperately needed. This situation

casted a long dark shadow on the plight of the mentally ill in our society and

how ill-equipped our society is to provide the appropriate assistance so

desperately needed to help those with severe mental illness. And to

protect innocent people like Ms. White from those in a state of a mental

health crisis.

The Amanda King standing in front of me today is the exact opposite

of the Amanda King who was in front of me for so many months in this case.

The Amanda King that was in front of me earlier was gripped by severe

mental disease and an illness that did not allow her to think clearly or

appreciate her accidents or even assist in her own defense. The Amanda

King in front of me today is clear headed, polite, and has a deep

appreciation and understanding for the severity of her crime and has shown

this Court the deep remorse she has for the death of Ms. White.

And I would like to read the letter that I received from Ms. King.

Where she says, dear Judge Montgomery and the family of Hattie White, I -5-

am sincerely remorseful for the loss of Ms. Hattie White. I know she was

a mother and a grandmother and is missed dearly by her loved ones.

There are no words or actions that will make everything okay, but my

deepest condolences go out to the family of Ms. White. I know how

important a grandmother is to a family, so I know Ms. White is the key that

holds the family together and the loss of her is unbearable pain.

Please don’t hold this against me. I’m not a bad person. I was

once an honor student in high school, and I didn’t deliberately crash. I ask

that everyone in the courtroom have mercy on me. I am truly and deeply

sorry for this traumatic loss that this family is experiencing. And I cannot

stress enough how sorry I am about this loss. Please find forgiveness in

your heart.

{¶ 8} The trial court imposed the maximum sentence of 60 months in prison for the

aggravated vehicular homicide, to be served concurrently with 12-month sentences in the

two other cases. The court also suspended King’s driver’s license for ten years.

{¶ 9} King appeals from her conviction, challenging the 60-month prison sentence.

II. Review of King’s 60-Month Sentence

{¶ 10} In her sole assignment of error, King claims that “the record does not

support the trial court’s maximum sentence by clear and convincing evidence and is,

therefore, contrary to law.” She asserts that a sentence of community control would have

been more appropriate.

{¶ 11} In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of -6-

review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 9. Under

that statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may

vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly”

finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the

sentence imposed is contrary to law. State v. Huffman, 2017-Ohio-4097, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 12} “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the

authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its

reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. King, 2013-

Ohio-2021, ¶ 45 (2d Dist.). “It is enough that the record demonstrates that the trial court

considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 prior to imposing its sentence.” State v.

Trent, 2021-Ohio-3698, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). “A sentence is contrary to law when it does not

fall within the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the

purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing

factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416,

¶ 74 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 13} R.C. 2929.11 requires trial courts to be guided by the overriding purposes

of felony sentencing. Those purposes are threefold: “to protect the public from future

crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective

rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines

accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local

government resources.” R.C. 2929.11(A). “[A] sentencing court may place such weight

on each of the purposes as the circumstances of the case require.” State v. Bittner, -7-

2019-Ohio-3834, ¶ 18 (12 Dist.).

{¶ 14} R.C. 2929.12(B) sets forth nine factors indicating that an offender’s conduct

is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense; R.C. 2929.12(C) sets forth

four factors indicating that an offender’s conduct is less serious than conduct normally

constituting the offense. R.C. 2929.12(D) and (E) each lists five factors that trial courts

are to consider regarding the offender’s likelihood of committing future crimes. For each

of these categories, the trial court may also consider “any other relevant factors.” Finally,

R.C. 2929.12(F) requires the sentencing court to consider the offender’s military service

record, if any, and whether the offender has a condition traceable to that service that

contributed to the commission of the offense.

{¶ 15} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not

provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view

that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State

v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. Accordingly, “[w]hen reviewing felony sentences that

are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, we

do not analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record.” (Emphasis

added.) State v. McDaniel, 2021-Ohio-1519, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Dorsey, 2021-

Ohio-76, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.); Jones at ¶ 26-29.

{¶ 16} However, Jones does not preclude claims that a sentence was imposed

based on impermissible considerations, namely considerations that fall outside of R.C.

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878 (the trial court impermissibly

increased the defendant’s sentence following his angry, profanity-laced in-court tirade -8-

after the announcement of his sentence.) “[W]hen a trial court imposes a sentence

based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C.

2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law.” Id. at ¶ 22.

{¶ 17} In this case, King does not assert that her 60-month sentence for

aggravated vehicular homicide was outside the statutory range. The record further

reflects that the trial court complied with its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12. Accordingly, we may not independently “weigh the evidence in the record and

substitute [our] judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best

reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones at ¶ 42.

{¶ 18} In her appellate brief, King acknowledges that Jones generally precludes

her argument. She expresses her belief that Jones reflects an unconstitutional

restriction on appellate review, and she states that she has raised her argument to

preserve it. King further asserts that the record clearly and convincingly does not support

the trial court’s conclusion that her history of drug abuse (which she does not contest)

was related to the offense. However, this argument amounts to a contention that the

sentence is not supported by the record, an argument that Jones precludes.

Nevertheless, we note that King was sentenced on three offenses at the sentencing

hearing, including a charge of aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court may have

referenced the history-of-drug-abuse factor in relation to that other offense.

{¶ 19} King’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 20} The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed. -9-

WELBAUM, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.