Case Summaries: Stalking - Criminal Stalking Sentencing
State v. Durbin
State v. Durbin, 2006-Ohio-5125 (2nd Dist., Greene, 9/29/2006) (Affirmed conviction and sentence for both Recklessly Violating Terms of a CPO and Menacing by Stalking because each of the offenses can be committed without committing the other offense and, thus, they are not "allied" offenses of a similar import and do not have to be merged.).
Keywords: 2903.211 "multiple offenses"
Date: 4/2/2007
State v. Hess
2004 WL 2340641, 2004-Ohio-5214, No. 83819 (Cuyahoga, 8th Dist., 9/30/2004) (Defendants claim at re-sentencing hearing that stalking statue is unconstitutional was barred by doctrine of res judicata where it was not raised in Defendants first appeal).
Keywords: sentence,penalty,"collateral estoppel
Date: 3/29/2005
State of Ohio v. Chandler
2004-Ohio-248, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 225 (5th App. Dist., Hamilton, 1/23/2004). Trial court and Court of Appeals rejected defendants claim that he did not know that a domestic violence TPO protecting his ex-girlfriend was in effect and thus could not be convicted of a felony of a fourth degree for menacing by stalking. Menacing by stalking is elevated to a felony of the fourth degree when the offender engages in menacing by stalking while subject to an existing stalking or domestic violence protection order. The TPO indicated that it was served on both defendant and his ex-wife on April 24, 2002, and defendant presented no evidence to rebut this. Even if the TPO was not served on defendant, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have concluded that defendant knew that a TPO was in effect by May 8, when he was arrested outside of his ex-wifes home for menacing by stalking. Therefore, defendants felony conviction for menacing by stalking was affirmed.
Keywords: penalty,"penalty enhancement","enhanced penalties",violation,enforcement
Date: 3/30/2004
State v. Boczek
2002 WL 31813018 (12/13/2002). (Appellate court affirmed a trial courts imposition of consecutive sentences, that it was sufficient for the trial court to state that it imposed consecutive sentences because the crime was committed while the appellant was under sanction in addition to the appellants lengthy criminal history.)
Keywords: 2903.211, stalking, menacing by stalking
Date: 5/15/2003
State v. Funderburg
2002 WL 31641098 (11/22/2002). (The appellate court overruled appellants assignments of error. Appellants first assignment of error was that the trial court erred in not allowing the appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas prior to sentencing. His second assignment of error was that consecutive sentences on crimes of similar import was erroneous. The appellate court specifically found that a change of heart is not sufficient justification for withdrawing a guilty plea. Furthermore, consecutive sentences are warranted as long as there was an intervening act between the two crimes of similar import, even if such an intervening act is of short duration.)
Keywords: 2903.211, menacing by stalking, stalking
Date: 5/15/2003
State v. Brooks
2002 WL 31394194 (10th Dist., 10/24/2002). (Affirmed lower courts ruling denying appellant the right to withdraw his guilty plea, found that the trial court should have specified its reasons for exceeding the minimum prison term under O.R.C. 2929.14.)
Keywords: 2903.211, menacing by stalking
Date: 5/15/2003
State v. Eaken
2002 WL 31838103 (11/22/2002). (Affirmed the lower courts sentencing based on the multiple offenses committed by appellant and the necessity of protecting the public from future crime.)
Keywords: 2903.211, menacing by stalking
Date: 5/15/2003
State v. Klepatzki
2003 WL1564323 (8th App. Dist., 2003). (The appellate court affirmed the lower courts determination that consecutive sentences were appropriate for breaking and entering along with multiple courts of menacing by stalking. A forty-five month sentence was proportionate to the defendants crimes and the danger the defendant posed to the community at large. The appellate court further rejected the defendants argument that the sentence was disproportionate because the trial court initially imposed a community control sanction.)
Keywords: 2903.211, menacing by stalking, stalking
Date: 5/15/2003
