YOUNGSTOWN — The 7th District Court of Appeals has ruled an error in the 2018 resentencing of Aubrey Toney in a high-profile Youngstown murder case was not serious enough to have changed the outcome of his sentence.

Toney, now 39, was convicted in 2014 in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court of murder in the death of Thomas Repchic, 74, and felonious assault in the shooting of his wife, Jacqueline, 74.

Officials said Toney shot the couple Sept. 25, 2010, in their car in a case of mistaken identity.

Toney shot into the Repchics’ burgundy 1990 Cadillac near St. Dominic Catholic Church shortly after Thomas Repchic picked up his wife from the church, where she worked as a secretary.

Judge Maureen Sweeney held a resentencing hearing July 3, 2018, on order from the appeals court, sentencing Toney to the same sentence that she gave him in 2014 and 2016 — 29 years to life in prison.

Toney appealed the 2018 sentence, arguing that he was denied his due-process rights because he was resentenced remotely via video hookup rather than in person.

Toney was “correct that a criminal defendant has a fundamental right to be present at all critical stages of his criminal trial,” the ruling stated. But the court can sentence a defendant by video under as long as certain requirements are met.

For example, the defendant has a right to communicate with his or her lawyer during the hearing.

Judge Sweeney did not fully comply with all of the requirements to sentence Toney remotely because the record does not indicate Toney waived his right to be present for the hearing.

But a transcript of the hearing indicates that many of the requirements were followed, the ruling states. Toney was asked if he had anything to say, and he indicated “Well, not really, Your Honor.”

The Ohio Supreme Court in a number of cases has indicated that a judges’ failure to comply with every aspect of the rules for a sentencing hearing “does not automatically amount to” prejudicing a defendant, the ruling stated. “Rather, prejudice must be shown.”

The appeals judges, Carol Robb, Gene Donofrio and David D’Apolito, stated, “Although it would have been a better practice for the trial court to fully comply with (the sentencing rules), the failure to comply in this situation did not rise to the level of plain error.”

“Plain error,” according to the Free Legal Dictionary is “The principle that an appeals court can reverse a judgment and order a new trial because of a serious mistake in the proceedings, even though no objection was made at the time the mistake occurred.”

Toney “failed to demonstrate that the outcome of this case would have been different had he been physically present at the resentencing,” the appeals judges stated.

erunyan@tribtoday.com