Ohio intermediate appeals court, finding functional LWOP sentence excessive for multiple burglaries, cuts 50 years off term
A helpful former student alerted me to an interesting state appeals court ruling in my own backyard handed down last week. Even though the ruling in State v. Gwynne, 2017-Ohio-7570 (5th Dist. Sept. 11, 2017) (available here), is pretty brief, the issues raised by both the case facts and the state appeals ruling could occupy an entire modern sentencing course. Here are some snippets that should prompt sentencing fans to check out the full opinion:
Defendant-Appellant [stole] from at least 12 different nursing homes and assisted living facilities in both Delaware and Franklin counties over the course of eight years. Detectives were unable to connect all of the property to its rightful owners. During part of appellant’s spree, she was employed as a nurse’s aide. After she was fired for suspicion of theft, however, she continued to dress as a nurse’s aide, in order to enter nursing homes and steal from residents while appearing to be a legitimate employee....
At the change of plea hearing, appellant admitted that she had been stealing from nursing home residents since 2004, four years earlier than the earliest charge in the indictment. Some residents she knew and worked with, others she did not. She claimed a cocaine habit was to blame, and that she took cash as well as other items to sell to support her habit.
At the sentencing hearing held on November 7, 2016, the trial court indicated it had reviewed the PSI, sentencing memoranda from the state and appellant, as well as the victim impact statements. The state recommended 42 years incarceration. Counsel for appellant advocated for intensive supervision community control, and a period of time in a community based correctional facility.
After considering all of the applicable sentencing statutes, and making all of the required findings, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years for each of the 15 second degree felony burglaries, 12 months for each of the third degree felony thefts, 12 months for each of the fourth degree felony thefts, and 180 days for each first degree misdemeanor receiving stolen property. The court ordered appellant to serve the felony sentences consecutively, and the misdemeanor sentences concurrently for an aggregate of 65 years incarceration....
Appellant was 55 years old at the time of her sentencing....
We do not minimize the seriousness of appellant's conduct. On this record, however, we find the stated prison term of 65 years does not comply with the purposes and principals of felony sentencing.... A sentence of 65 is plainly excessive. It can be affirmatively stated that a 65 year sentence is a life sentence for appellant. Even a sentence of 20 years, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing and weighed against the factual circumstances of this case, would seem excessive.
The sentence is an emotional response to very serious and reprehensible conduct. However, the understandably strong feelings must be tempered by a sanction clearly and convincingly based upon the record to effectuate the purposes of sentencing. The sentence imposed here does not do so. It is disproportionate to the conduct and the impact on any and all of the victims either individually or collectively. It runs the risk of lessening public respect for the judicial system. The imposition of a 65 year sentence for a series of non-violent theft offenses for a first-time felon shocks the consciousness. We therefore find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence.....
We agree, however, with the trial court’s findings relating to the necessity of a prison sentence, and that consecutive sentences are warranted. We therefore modify appellant’s sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) ... [to reach] an aggregate term of 15 years of incarceration. Given the facts of this case, we find 15 years incarceration consistent with the principles and purposes of sentencing.
Though much can be said about this case, the scope of imprisonment considered at every level of this case startles me and yet I fear startles few others. Prosecutors, even after getting a plea, claimed that this woman at age 55 needed to be subject to 42 years incarceration, at the end of which she would be 97 years old. The judge apparently decided that was not harsh enough, and thus imposed a sentence that would run until this woman was 130! Thanks to an unusual appeals court ruling, this defendant now has to be grateful she will only be imprisoned until age 70. Wowsa.
Comments
Post a Comment