State v. Abdullaev
2021 Ohio 2195
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Defendant Akmal Abdullaev pleaded guilty to five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor.
- Trial court imposed 18 months on each count; counts 1 and 2 were ordered consecutive; counts 3–5 were concurrent with each other and with counts 1–2, producing a total 36-month term.
- Abdullaev appealed, arguing his sentence was contrary to law: (1) a prison term was inappropriate given no prior record and low recidivism risk, and (2) consecutive sentences were improper.
- At the sentencing hearing the court stated two required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (necessity to protect the public; harm so great or unusual that single term inadequate) but did not orally state the proportionality finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate.
- The written sentencing entry contained all three statutory consecutive-sentence findings, but the missing oral proportionality finding at the hearing could not be inferred from the court’s other statements.
- The appellate court affirmed the sentence in all other respects, vacated only the consecutive-sentence component for lack of the required oral proportionality finding, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing limited to that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Abdullaev) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prison terms were improper given defendant's lack of prior record | Prison terms were permissible and appropriate given sexual nature and multiple minor victims | No prison term should have been imposed because defendant had no criminal history and low recidivism risk | Court: prison terms authorized and appropriate given offense nature and multiple victims; claim rejected |
| Whether consecutive sentences were legally imposed | Consecutive sentences were warranted and supported by the statutory findings (as reflected in the entry) | Consecutive sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to make all required findings at sentencing | Court: Reversed as to consecutive sentences only because the trial court failed to announce the proportionality finding at the sentencing hearing; remanded for resentencing limited to consecutiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 997 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio App. 2013) (discussing appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08 for reviewing sentences)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for when appellate court may modify or vacate sentence)
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (Crim.R. 32(A)(4) requires trial court to state consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing)
- State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (consequences when statutory consecutive-sentence findings are not made at the sentencing hearing)