Title: State v. Johnson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Johnson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-770.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-770 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. JOHNSON, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State v. Johnson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-770.] 
Criminal law—Presentence-investigation reports—R.C. 2951.03 and 2953.08—
Right of appointed appellate counsel to view report. 
(No. 2013-0332—Submitted January 8, 2014—Decided March 5, 2014.) 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2011-11-0212. 
____________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} The Twelfth District Court of Appeals has certified a conflict with 
a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeals in State v. Jordan, 4th Dist. No. 
03CA2878 (Nov. 17, 2003) on the following question: “[w]hether, pursuant to 
R.C. 2951.03, newly-appointed appellate counsel is entitled to obtain a copy of 
the defendant’s presentence investigation report.”  135 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2013-
Ohio-1622, 986 N.E.2d 28. 
{¶ 2} R.C. 2951.03(D)(1) permits a “defendant’s counsel” to “inspect, 
receive copies of, retain copies of, and use a presentence investigation report * * * 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
only for the purposes of or only as authorized by * * * division (F)(1) of section 
2953.08.”  Because the term “defendant’s counsel” as used in R.C. 2951.03(D)(1) 
encompasses both a defendant’s trial counsel and a defendant’s appellate counsel 
and because the statute does not restrict access to the report to a defendant’s trial 
counsel, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals, which had denied Johnson’s newly appointed 
appellate counsel the opportunity to view the presentence investigation report.  
Therefore, we order the appellate court to provide appellate counsel access to the 
report subject to similar restrictions as contained in R.C. 2951.03 and 
2953.08(F)(1) and any further directives of the appellate court. 
Factual Background and Procedural History 
{¶ 3} Donald Lee Johnson pled no contest to aggravated robbery and an 
accompanying firearm specification, robbery, and aggravated possession of drugs.  
At Johnson’s disposition hearing, the trial court stated that it “had a chance to 
review and consider * * * a presentence investigation report” and proceeded to 
impose an aggregate sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment, $19,000 in fines, and a 
mandatory term of five years of postrelease control. 
{¶ 4} Johnson appealed his sentence, and his newly appointed appellate 
counsel moved to view and supplement the record with the presentence 
investigation report to further investigation of the propriety of Johnson’s sentence 
and fines.  The state opposed the motion, and thereafter the Twelfth District 
granted the motion to supplement but denied the motion to disclose the report to 
Johnson’s appellate counsel, stating that “[n]o provision of [R.C. 2951.03(D)(1)] 
permits disclosure of a presentence investigation report to counsel after the 
defendant has been sentenced.” 
{¶ 5} On appeal to this court, Johnson asserts that his rights to due 
process and effective assistance of counsel require that appellate counsel have 
access to the presentence investigation report so that counsel can determine 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
potential assignments of error on appeal and also contends that the definition of 
“the defendant’s counsel” includes the defendant’s attorney on appeal.  Johnson 
further asserts that reading R.C. 2951.03(D)(1) in pari materia with R.C. 
2953.08(F)(1) indicates the legislature’s intent to allow a defendant to 
meaningfully challenge his sentence on appeal, which requires that the defendant 
and his counsel have access to the same information that is available to the state, 
trial court, and appellate court. 
{¶ 6} The state counters that pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 
2951.03, a defendant and his counsel are permitted to review the presentence 
investigation report only prior to the sentence.  It further maintains that the 
legislature did not intend for appellate counsel on either side to access the report, 
because the statute refers to “[t]he court” and the “appellate court” but does not 
refer to “appellate counsel” when stating “the defendant, the defendant’s counsel, 
[and] the prosecutor,” it requires all copies of the report be returned to the court 
after imposition of sentence, and it provides that the report is confidential and 
must be placed under seal.  Additionally, the state asserts that Johnson’s 
constitutional rights are not violated if his counsel cannot view the report on 
appeal, because neither party has access to the report pending appeal, appellate 
counsel can challenge the defendant’s sentence by using the transcript of the 
sentencing hearing, which would include any errors and corrections to the report 
that the defendant had highlighted, and the appellate court is required to examine 
the presentence investigation report when reviewing the sentence. 
{¶ 7} Thus, the issue is whether appellate counsel who was not trial 
counsel may obtain a copy of the presentence investigation report for purposes of 
representing Johnson on appeal. 
Law and Analysis 
{¶ 8} R.C. 2951.03(A)(1) provides, “No person who has been convicted 
of or pleaded guilty to a felony shall be placed under a community control 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
sanction until a written presentence investigation report has been considered by 
the court.”  The report must address the circumstances of the offense; the criminal 
record, social history, and present condition of the defendant; and, possibly, the 
victims’ statements regarding the impact of the offense.  Id. 
{¶ 9} R.C. 2951.03 permits access to the report in certain circumstances.  
Specifically, R.C. 2951.03(B)(1) provides that “the court, at a reasonable time 
before imposing sentence, shall permit the defendant or the defendant’s counsel to 
read the report,” with some exceptions.  Moreover, pursuant to R.C. 
2951.03(B)(2), “[p]rior to sentencing, the court shall permit the defendant and the 
defendant’s counsel to comment on the presentence investigation report and, in its 
discretion, may permit the defendant and the defendant’s counsel to introduce 
testimony or other information that relates to any alleged factual inaccuracy 
contained in the report.” 
{¶ 10} R.C. 2951.03(D)(1) provides that the contents of a presentence 
investigation report “are confidential information and are not a public record.”  
But the defendant and the defendant’s counsel may seek access to the report 
pursuant to R.C. 2951.03(D)(1), which provides: 
 
The court, an appellate court, * * * the defendant, the defendant’s 
counsel, the prosecutor who is handling the prosecution of the case 
against the defendant, * * * may inspect, receive copies of, retain 
copies of, and use a presentence investigation report * * * only for 
the purposes of or only as authorized by Criminal Rule 32.2 or this 
section, division (F)(1) of section 2953.08, section 2947.06, or 
another section of the Revised Code. 
 
{¶ 11} Moreover, in accordance with R.C. 2951.03(D)(2), the defendant, 
the defendant’s counsel, and the prosecutor may not make copies of the report and 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
must return all copies of the report to the court “[i]mmediately following the 
imposition of sentence upon the defendant,” and, pursuant to R.C. 2951.03(D)(3), 
the “court or other authorized holder of the report * * * shall retain the report 
* * * under seal,” except when it is being used for specified purposes. 
{¶ 12} R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) provides that a presentence investigation report 
is part of the record to be reviewed on an appeal of a sentence under that statute; it 
also provides that during such an appeal, an appellate court must comply with 
R.C. 2951.03(D)(3) when not using the report and that the appellate court’s use of 
the report does not affect the otherwise confidential nature of its contents or make 
it a public record. 
{¶ 13} Construing R.C. 2951.03 and 2953.08(F)(1) to preclude appellate 
counsel from accessing the presentence investigation report may implicate 
constitutional concerns of due process and/or the right to effective assistance of 
appellate counsel on a first appeal as of right.  See generally Evitts v. Lucey, 469 
U.S. 387, 396, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) (“A first appeal as of right 
* * * is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if the appellant does not 
have the effective assistance of an attorney”);  State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 
176, 2003-Ohio-5607, 797 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 33 (“A convicted defendant is entitled to 
the effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right”).  More 
specifically, barring appellate counsel from accessing a presentence investigation 
report relied upon by the trial court would deny an appellant “a fair opportunity to 
obtain an adjudication on the merits of his appeal,” Evitts at 405, because it would 
restrain counsel’s ability to fully investigate and determine potential issues for 
appeal. 
{¶ 14} Because of concerns for due process and the right to effective 
assistance of counsel on an appeal, and because the term “defendant’s counsel” as 
used in R.C. 2951.03(D)(1) includes both a defendant’s trial counsel and a 
defendant’s appellate counsel, we answer the certified question in the affirmative 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
and permit newly appointed appellate counsel to have access to a presentence 
investigation report upon a proper showing therefor, subject to similar restrictions 
as contained in R.C. 2951.03 and 2953.08(F)(1) and any further directives of the 
appellate court. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 15} Because we conclude that Johnson’s appellate counsel may have 
access to the presentence investigation report pursuant to R.C. 2951.03 pursuant 
to a demonstration of need therefor, we reverse the judgment of the Twelfth 
District Court of Appeals and order the appellate court to provide Johnson’s 
appellate counsel access to the presentence investigation report subject to similar 
restrictions as contained in R.C. 2951.03 and 2953.08(F)(1) and any further 
directives of the appellate court. 
Judgment reversed  
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
FRENCH, J., concurs in judgment only. 
____________________ 
 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and E. Kelly Mihocik, Assistant 
Public Defender, for appellant. 
 
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. 
Oster Jr., Chief, Appellate Division, and Lina N. Alkamhawi, Assistant 
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________________