Login | March 29, 2024

Man entitled to new sentence being reprimanded for pursuing jury trial

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News

Published: March 27, 2015

A three-judge appellate panel recently remanded a theft case for new sentencing after finding that the Warren County Court of Common Pleas hinted it was imposing a harsher sentence because the defendant exercised his right to a jury trial.

The 12th District Court of Appeals affirmed Justin Noble’s convictions for theft and receiving stolen property, but sustained a challenge to his eight-year prison term.

“We find that the statements made by the trial court created the appearance from which an inference could be made that it may have augmented Noble’s sentence because he exercised his right to a jury trial,” Presiding Judge Robin Piper wrote on behalf of the 12th District.

The facts of the case state that Noble participated in a series of thefts between July 17 and July 19, 2013.

During that time, he and Keenan Davidson reportedly broke into several vehicles to steal electronics and medications.

Three of the vehicles were also stolen with Davidson allegedly taking two and Noble taking the third.

Noble eventually agreed to work with his investigating officer and rode in the police cruiser to point out the areas where the thefts occurred.

He gave the officer details about the thefts and explained his and Davidson’s levels of involvement.

A grand jury later indicted Noble on 16 total counts, including charges for receiving stolen property, theft and theft of a motor vehicle.

Two of those theft offenses were elevated to fifth-degree felonies because the items stolen were reportedly worth more than $1,000 and less than $7,500.

At a two-day jury trial on the matter, 13 victims testified for the state, including Darren Heath and Jonathan Lloyd.

Heath testified that a bag containing numerous electronics used for his business was taken from his car.

He told the court that there were two laptops in the bag and one was worth $1,000 while the other was worth $1,200.

Similarly, Lloyd testified that a bag containing the laptop used for his employment was taken from his car.

He explained that the laptop was worth $1,200.

The investigating detective testified that Noble specifically admitted to taking bags from both Heath’s and Lloyd’s cars.

The jury found Noble guilty of all counts and the trial court proceeded to sentencing.

It emphasized that Noble’s crimes caused “extraordinary” harm “and the nature of the crime spree is overwhelming.”

The judge noted that the only positive thing was that Noble did cooperate with police, but also stated that he “wasted the jury’s time with this trial.”

Continuing on that line of rhetoric, the trial judges stated there was “absolutely nothing your attorney could do for you” because Noble “committed every one of these crimes as clearly as could be.”

“The jury took every opportunity to look at it and scrutinize the evidence carefully, but this isn’t a case where you had some legitimate defense to the claim, you just simply took a shot and hoped that the jury was dumb enough to buy some of these nonsensical arguments. So, this court will not give you any benefit of leniency,” the trial court stated.

The judges did note that maximum consecutive sentences were inappropriate, but again stated that Noble would not get the same leniency he would have if he had admitted his guilt.

“You don’t get the same kind of leniency you would have gotten if you had just fessed up, taken responsibility and said, ‘OK, I got caught, I screwed up, now what’s my prison sentence?’” the judges stated.

The court then imposed an eight-year prison term and Noble appealed. He argued that he was penalized for exercising his constitutional right to a trial.

“It is axiomatic that ‘a defendant is guaranteed the right to a trial and should never be punished for exercising that right,’” Piper wrote.

The appellate panel further noted that it is improper for a trial court to even create the appearance that it may be augmenting a sentence because the defendant exercised his right to a jury trial.

It specifically held that a trial court may not make statements that could cause one to infer that the defendant was punished for pursuing a trial.

“Statements made by the trial court that create such an inference cause a chilling effect on requesting a trial,” Piper stated. “When an appearance of an augment sentence is created, even when a defendant may not in fact have been punished for electing to go to trial, a defendant’s sentence must be vacated.”

In Noble’s case, the judges explained that they did not believe the experienced trial judge actually punished Noble for pursuing a trial.

Still, they found that the record provided evidence that might cause some to infer that such a punishment was imposed.

While the trial judge did note the harm caused by Noble’s crime spree, the appellate panel placed more emphasis on the statements accusing Noble of wasting the jury’s time.

It also found no evidence that the trial court stated Noble’s sentence was not more severe because he did not plead guilty.

“Such a sentence delivered unclearly does not shine brightly upon the fair and even administration of justice required by law. While the sentence may have been diligently and appropriately rendered in all other respects, the impression inadvertently created by the trial court requires Noble’s sentence to be vacated,” Piper wrote, upholding the first assignment of error.

Noble next argued that his conviction of the fifth-degree felony theft offenses was against the sufficiency of the evidence because the state failed to prove the value of the items taken.

The judges found, however, that the victims clearly testified to the worth of their stolen laptops and overruled Noble’s argument.

Judges Michael Powell and Robert Hendrickson joined Piper in affirming Noble’s conviction but reversing his sentence and remanding for further proceedings.

The case is cited State v. Noble, 2015-Ohio-652.

Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]