2018 Ohio 3683
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Brian L. Balderson was indicted on two counts of forgery and two counts of receiving stolen property; he pleaded guilty to two forgery counts and the receiving-stolen-property counts were nolled.
- The trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI), which it reviewed prior to sentencing; PSI is confidential and is part of the appellate record when a sentence is appealed.
- At sentencing the court imposed 7 months on each forgery count to be served consecutively for a total of 14 months, and ordered $834.72 restitution.
- Balderson appealed pro se, arguing the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without the required findings on the record and complaining he had not been given a copy of the PSI.
- The prosecutor moved to supplement the appellate record with the PSI; the appellate court granted the motion and reviewed the PSI and sentencing transcript.
- The trial court’s journal entry included the statutory consecutive-sentence findings and, at the hearing, the court discussed ongoing course of conduct and Balderson’s lengthy criminal history as support for consecutive terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required to impose consecutive sentences | State: sentencing entry and transcript show required findings; PSI reviewed by court | Balderson: court imposed consecutive terms without required findings on the record and he lacked access to the PSI | Affirmed: court made the necessary findings at hearing and in journal entry; PSI availability complaint meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (trial court must make statutorily required consecutive-sentence findings at hearing and include them in the sentencing entry; exact statutory language not required so long as record shows correct analysis)