Login | September 08, 2024
Supreme Court of Ohio upholds overruling of sentence appeal
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 26, 2024
Having determined that a criminal defendant was not harmed by the appellate court’s decision to resolve an intradistrict conflict before ruling on his appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the Eighth District decision overruling the man’s appeal of his sentence.
Justice Joe Deters reasoned that although 40-year-old Elvin Maldonado was correct in his assertion that the en banc ruling mistakenly preceded a judgment by the assigned three-judge panel, the appellate court’s action was not prejudicial to his appeal.
“Maldonado contends that the court of appeals’ action here amounted to structural error for which automatic reversal is appropriate,” Deters wrote fort the 5-2 court. “There is no constitutional right at issue here. The court of appeals’ error was limited to violating a procedural rule.”
A jury convicted Maldonado in 2019 on four counts of felonious assault, with an accompanying drive-by-shooting firearm specification for each count, and one count of discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises, with an accompanying drive-by-shooting firearm specification, according to case background.
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of nine years and ordered Maldonado to register as a violent offender, prompting an initial appeal on the basis that the trial court erred when it convicted him of the drive-by-shooting specification accompanying the discharging-a-firearm count and when it ordered him to register as a violent offender.
An Eighth District panel remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing so that the specification and registration requirement could be vacated, summary provided.
The trial court denied Maldonado’s request to appear for a resentencing hearing and resolved the sentencing issue and registration requirement ordered by the appellate court.
Case summary noted that in all other respects, the sentence remained the same.
Maldonado appealed to the Eighth District a second time, arguing that the trial court erred when it resentenced him without holding a hearing and when it failed to include an updated calculation of jail-time credit in the entry.
The appeal was assigned to a three-judge panel and was scheduled for consideration on March 1, 2022, summary continued.
On Feb. 23, 2023, the Eighth District issued a judgment entry announcing that court would consider the panel’s proposed decision en banc to resolve a conflict between two other decisions within the district.
The same day, the en banc court confirmed the rule set forth in State v. Howard that according to the rules of criminal procedure, a defendant’s presence is not required at any proceeding solely intended to vacate or delete any portion of a sentence, punishment, penalty or other criminal sanction upon remand from a direct appeal, summary detailed.
Based on the en banc decision, the panel then overruled Maldonado’s assignment of error that claimed the trial court was mistaken to not allow him to participate in the sentencing hearing.
Additionally, the panel overruled his challenge to calculation of jail-time credit.
Maldonado subsequently appealed to the high court, asserting that a court of appeals may not consider a case en banc until after a decision has been released by a three-judge panel of the court.
Deters wrote that Maldonado also argued had the court of appeals followed appellate rules of procedure, the original panel assigned to his appeal may not have rejected his argument.
“In support, he points out that the two judges who dissented from the en banc decision had originally been on the panel assigned to his appeal,” the justice continued. “But his speculative argument does not take into account that en banc consideration of that decision would have resulted in the same resolution as the en banc decision resolving the (intradistrict) conflict … , since 10 of the 12 judges agreed with the en banc determination.”
The justice concluded that Maldonado failed to demonstrate that had the court concluded that the trial court should have held a hearing, his ultimate outcome would be affected.
“Even if the trial court were ordered to conduct a hearing, Maldonado’s sentence would remain the same,” Deters wrote. “Vacation of the drive-by-shooting specification did not change his aggregate sentence. … Absent a demonstration that Maldonado was prejudiced by the court of appeals’ actions, we will not reverse its judgment.”
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and justices Pat DeWine and Jennifer Brunner concurred with Deters’ opinion, while Justice Melody Stewart concurred in judgment only.
Justice Patrick Fischer dissented from the majority opinion and was joined by Justice Michael Donnelly.
Copyright © 2024 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved