State v. Anderson
2017 Ohio 4186
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Latwan Anderson pleaded guilty to multiple amended counts arising from three armed robberies and a kidnapping that occurred in January–February 2016; two separate indictments were resolved by plea.
- Pleas: in one case guilty to aggravated robbery (with one-year firearm spec.) and kidnapping; in the other guilty to two aggravated robberies (one with three-year firearm spec. and a forfeiture spec.) and tampering with evidence; remaining counts were nolled.
- Sentencing: total aggregate prison term of 13 years (4 years in one case, 9 years in the other), with certain firearm specifications ordered consecutive.
- Anderson appealed solely challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing the trial court erred because it did not impose maximum sentences on the individual offenses.
- The trial court made oral findings at sentencing that it had considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, found consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public or punish, that they were not disproportionate, and that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) applied because multiple offenses formed courses of conduct producing great/unusual harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: trial court made required findings and record supports them | Anderson: consecutive terms improper because court did not impose maximum sentences on individual counts; lesser-than-maximum undermines consecutive findings | Court: affirmed — findings satisfied Bonnell; consecutive sentences permissible despite non-maximum individual terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (addresses standard of appellate review of felony sentences)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659 (trial court must both make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and incorporate them into the record)
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 715 N.E.2d 131 (court must note it engaged in statutory analysis when imposing sentence)
- Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470 (sentencing discretion restored within statutory ranges)
- State v. Long, 138 Ohio St.3d 478, 2014-Ohio-849, 8 N.E.3d 890 (discusses wide discretion afforded trial courts in felony sentencing)