State v. Madden

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 4891

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in imposing a repeat violent offender sentence enhancement because: (1) Ohio law did not require the court to state whether the sentence enhancement was mandatory or discretionary; (2) the trial court's consideration of the defendant's risk of recidivism and the seriousness of his crime when deciding the length of the sentence enhancement did not amount to unconstitutional judicial fact finding; and (3) Ohio law does not require a juvenile court to relinquish jurisdiction for a juvenile conviction to serve as the basis of determining whether a defendant is an repeat violent offender. Moreover, the defendant's request to represent himself at trial was not \unequivocal\ when he later withdrew the request. Finally, the trial court did not err in permitting a victim representative to remain in court despite serving as the first witness because a victim's representative is entitled to assert all rights afforded to victims under Ohio law, including exemption from witness separation orders at trial.