State v. Back
2014 Ohio 1656
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Jamie Back pled guilty to one count of breaking and entering (fifth-degree felony) and one count of failing to comply with a police officer (fourth-degree felony).
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 12 months for breaking-and-entering and 18 months for failure-to-comply, ordered to run consecutively for a total of 30 months.
- The State conceded on appeal that the trial court erred by not making the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing consecutive sentences.
- The sentencing transcript, however, shows the court stated it was ordering the failure-to-comply sentence consecutive “under the failure to comply statute 2921.331(D).”
- R.C. 2921.331(D) mandates consecutive service when a defendant is sentenced under certain subsections of the failure-to-comply statute, removing the trial court’s discretion to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
- The trial court’s judgment entry expressly stated it considered the record and R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; both sentences were within statutory ranges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not making R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before ordering consecutive sentences | State: Trial court failed to articulate the statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record (conceded error) | Back: Court erred by imposing consecutive maximum sentences without required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | No error — R.C. 2921.331(D) mandated consecutive sentences for the failure-to-comply conviction, so R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were unnecessary |
| Whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law because the record lacks explicit R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 recitation | State: (conceded that findings lacking) | Back: Sentencing transcript does not reference R.C. 2929.11 purposive statements or R.C. 2929.12 factors | Not contrary to law — sentences within statutory ranges and judgment entry expressly states the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (sets standard that a sentence within statutory range is not contrary to law when the court states it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12)
- State v. Parker, 952 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (a judgment entry stating consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 suffices even if the sentencing hearing transcript lacks explicit recitation)