Youngstown Daily Legal News

Justices rule only death penalty warrants a separate sentencing opinion

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 23, 2016

The Ohio Supreme Court recenlty ruled that a judge was not required to issue a separate sentencing opinion when he was compelled to impose a sentence recommended by a jury.

Larry Stewart appealed to the high court from the judgment of the 8th District Court of Appeals, which dismissed his complaint for a writ of mandamus against Judge Michael Russo.

Case summary states that Stewart was found guilty of aggravated murder, attempted murder, aggravated robbery and kidnapping in 1997 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

Although he was indicted with capital specifications, a jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 30 years and the trial court imposed that sentence.

In 2014, Stewart filed a motion for a final appealable order and resentencing, but Russo denied the motion, finding that the court “is not required to file a written sentencing opinion when the jury has recommended a sentence other than death, which is the circumstance here.”

Early last year Stewart filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the 8th District court seeking an order compelling Russo to issue a “final appealable order consisting of both a sentencing opinion” and “the judgment of conviction.”

According to Stewart, because his sentencing entry did not state why the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating circumstances, his sentence was not a final appealable order.

Russo, however, was granted summary judgment. The 8th District court ruled that the Ohio Revised Code requires a separate sentencing opinion only when a jury recommends the death penalty.

The Supreme Court made the same finding.

“To obtain a writ of mandamus, Stewart must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the trial court to provide it and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,” the high court wrote in its per curiam opinion.

Under Stewart’s interpretation of the law, a sentencing opinion is required no matter the sentence recommended by the jury according to R.C. 2929.03(F).

But the state Supreme Court held that reading the statute as Stewart urged “would ignore the plain and unambiguous language of subsection (D)(2), which requires a trial judge to impose the jury’s recommended sentence when the jury recommends a life sentence.”

“Because the jury in Stewart’s case recommended that he be sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 30 years, R.C. 2929.03(D)(2) is dispositive and division (F) does not apply,” the high court wrote. “To accept Stewart’s argument that R.C. 2929.03(F) requires a separate sentencing opinion even when the jury recommends life would violate the basic tenet that ‘statutes are construed to avoid unreasonable or absurd consequences.’”

The Supreme Court ruled that, under Stewart’s reading, a trial judge would “have to engage in an exercise of judicial extrasensory perception” due to the fact that the judge “would be forced to determine the course and matter of the jury’s deliberations to draft the separate sentencing opinion contemplated by” subsection (F).

The reviewing court further concluded that Stewart’s argument ignored the statute’s requirement that when a jury recommends a sentence of life imprisonment for a capital offense, the trial court is obligated to impose that sentence and “has no authority to independently engage in the weighing process.”

Stewart went on to argue that the 8th District’s denial of the writ of mandamus that he requested “contradicts this court’s precedent that trial courts are required to strictly adhere to statutory procedure in capital cases.”

“Indeed, we have consistently required strict compliance with Ohio statutes when reviewing the procedures in capital cases,” the Supreme Court wrote. “But, as explained above, Stewart is not entitled to a separate sentencing opinion under R.C. 2929.03(F) because the trial court had no jurisdiction to independently determine the sentence for Stewart’s aggravated murder conviction.”

Contrary to Stewart’s claims, the high court held that both the original trial judge and Russo strictly complied with sentencing statutes.

“We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying Stewart a writ of mandamus,” the Supreme Court concluded.

The decision was unanimous. The case is cited State ex rel. Stewart v. Russo, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-421.

[Back]