Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO vs. JENNIFER CHANDLER
APPEAL NO. C-190153

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 22, 2020

Appeal of sentence pursuant to guilty pleas of extortion and attempted extortion. 

Chandler pled guilty to one count of extortion, a felony of the third degree, and one count of attempted extortion, a felony of the fourth degree.  Chandler was released on bond pending sentencing.  The trial court informed Chandler that “if you get into any kind of trouble or you don’t show up for sentencing, I will give you every single day I can in prison. Got it?”  Chandler failed to show for a pre-sentence investigation interview and failed to appear for sentencing.  A warrant for Chandler’s arrest was issued.  Chandler was ultimately arrested and sentenced to a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison for attempted extortion and a maximum sentence of 36 months in prison for extortion.  These sentences were imposed consecutive for a total of 54 months in prison.  To support the imposition of consecutive sentences, the trial court stated that “consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct or the danger the defendant poses to the public. The offender’s criminal history shows a need to protect the public.”  Chandler appealed and argued that the sentences were contrary to law.

On appeal, Chandler argued that the trial court gave undue weight to the failure to appear at sentencing when imposing maximum, consecutive sentences, and because it failed to consider the principles and purposes of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

The First District held that a defendant’s failure to appear is an appropriate recidivism factor for the trial court to consider when determining whether to impose a maximum sentence.  Further First District found that the trial court correctly stated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public; that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct or the danger posed to the public; and that the Defendant’s criminal history showed a need to protect the public. The First District court ruled that the sentences imposed were not contrary to law and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.