The Akron Legal News

Court of appeals upholds drug-deal murder conviction

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 26, 2013

The 8th District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Javonte Hodges last week for the murder of Christopher Johnson.

A three-judge appellate panel did find, however, that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas did not make the findings required to impose consecutive sentences, despite the fact that the assistant prosecuting attorney attempted to prompt the court to make them.

The consecutive portion of Hodges’ sentence was therefore reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing.

Hodges’ conviction stemmed from a drug deal gone bad that took place in March 2012.

Hodges, along with co-defendants John Johnson and Deante Kidd, were purchasing drugs from Christopher Johnson in a vehicle.

Hodges shot Johnson, who was the driver of the vehicle, at close range in the back of the head, and caused Johnson to crash the car into a home.

Hodges fled the scene and was eventually apprehended in Florida.

According to the law enforcement officials who made the arrest, Hodges initially denied being the shooter.

At his sentencing hearing, however, he claimed that the shooting was an accident.

Pursuant to negotiations, Hodges entered pleas of guilty to murder with a three-year firearm specification, aggravated robbery with a three-year firearm specification, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle and having weapons while under disability.

The first three counts were merged as allied offenses and the state elected to proceed to sentencing on the murder conviction.

The trial court sentenced Hodges to the required three years in prison on the firearm specification, to be served prior and consecutively to 15 years to life in prison for the murder charge.

Hodges was also sentenced to 24 months for having weapons under disability, to be served consecutively to the murder sentence.

Upon appeal, Hodges assigned only one error, in which he challenged his consecutive sentence.

He stated that the trial court did not fully comply with the purposes of felony sentencing and failed to make the required findings for the imposition of consecutive sentences.

“The trial court has full discretion to impose any term of imprisonment within the statutory range,” wrote Judge Larry Jones on behalf of the appellate panel, “But it must consider the sentencing purposes in R.C. 2929.11 and the guidelines contained in R.C. 2929.12.”

During his sentencing hearing, Hodges maintained that the shooting accidentally occurred when he was taking money out of his sleeve, where he also happened to be keeping a gun.

He claimed that the gun jammed and denied ever pulling the trigger.

“I don’t buy that it was an accident, I find that extremely difficult to believe,” the common pleas judge stated. “I don’t know how anyone carries a gun by accident ... A gun can’t get in your pocket, waistband, or your arm sleeve by accident. An intentional movement must place that gun on your person. How does a gun get loaded? Not by accident.”

The trial court noted that Hodges, who was 23 years old at the time, had a juvenile record and an adult record that included convictions for rioting and criminal gang activity.

The trial court went on to state that “the respect (he has) for human life is not all that great” and determined that his criminal history made prison an appropriate punishment.

Upon a review of the record, the court of appeals held that the trial court properly considered the applicable factors and principles set forth by statute, including recidivism factors and the need to punish Hodges.

“Hodges’ contention that the trial court failed to consider the sentencing considerations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is therefore without merit,” wrote Judge Jones.

However, the appellate panel held that the trial court did not comply with the requirements for the imposition of consecutive sentences.

After sentencing Hodges to the mandatory 18 years for the murder and firearm specification, the court stated, “I find that recidivism factors are present, and that any less of a sentence would demean the seriousness of this offense. Your lack of remorse is palpable.”

The assistant prosecuting attorney noticed that the court did not note the required findings.

He attempted to prompt the judge: “Obviously this court has the discretion to impose those consecutive sentences if necessary to protect the public or punish the defendant, and that they’re not disproportionate, and this was the worst form of the offense.”

The court merely replied, “thank you” and proceeded to comment on the premeditated nature of Hodges’ offense.

“The court provided reasons for the sentence, but besides finding that ‘any less of a sentence would demean the seriousness of the offense,’ the court did not make the required findings required for consecutive sentences,” wrote Judge Jones.

The appellate panel concluded by reversing the imposition of consecutive sentences and remanding the case for resentencing.

Presiding Judge Frank Celebrezze concurred and Judge Eileen T. Gallagher concurred in judgment only.

The case is cited State v. Hodges, 2013-Ohio-5025.

[Back]