State v. MacDonald

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 3595

Syllabus

EVIDENCE – ATTEMPTED MURDER – FELONIOUS ASSAULT – COMPETENCY – NEW TRIAL – SENTENCING – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: Defendant's convictions for attempted murder and felonious assault were not against the sufficiency or weight of the evidence: the evidence supported the inference that defendant intended to kill the police officers where he threatened to kill the officers, pointed a gun at them, and shot in their direction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on incompetency where the court found defendant competent before trial, observed defendant during trial, and perceived defendant's effective communication with his defense counsel. The trial court did not err in sentencing defendant where defendant failed to affirmatively show that the court did not consider the R.C. 2929.11 purposes and principles of sentencing and the R.C. 2929.12 sentencing factors. The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences where the appellate court cannot discern from the record that the trial court engaged in the required analysis under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). [But see DISSENT: The statements of the trial court, coupled with the verbatim recitation of the statutory provision in the sentencing entry, are sufficient to demonstrate that the trial court complied with the dictates of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).]