State v. Ackles
2018 Ohio 3718
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Trey L. Ackles was charged in 2017 with two trafficking counts and one possession count; he pled guilty to one trafficking count (felony) and one possession count (felony); the other trafficking count was dismissed.
- Defendant was also subject to a community-control revocation in a separate 2016 case and was sentenced to 12 months for that violation at the same hearing.
- In the 2017 case the court imposed 36 months for count one and 6 months for count three, to run concurrently, and ordered those sentences to run consecutively to the 12-month sentence from the 2016 case, yielding an aggregate 48 months.
- The trial court did not state the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (necessity, proportionality, and one of the subsections (a), (b), or (c)) when imposing consecutive sentences.
- The State conceded the trial court failed to make the required findings; on appeal the Third District reversed and remanded for resentencing because the imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences without statutory findings | State did not contest sentence validity on appeal; conceded omission | Ackles argued court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive terms | Court held consecutive sentence contrary to law because required findings were not made and reversed for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state required consecutive-sentence findings on the record; journal entry should reflect findings; nunc pro tunc cannot cure failure to make findings at sentencing)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Duncan, 61 N.E.3d 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (consecutive-sentence findings required even when violation arises from different case)