2018 Ohio 3440
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Daniel Barajas-Anguiano was indicted on multiple sexual and related offenses; he previously was sentenced in a separate case (16-C-0012) to 58 months for Gross Sexual Imposition and Voyeurism involving his daughter.
- He pled guilty in the present case (16-C-0147) to one count of Endangering Children (son victim) and was sentenced to 72 months, ordered to run consecutively to the sentence in 16-C-0012.
- At the plea and sentencing hearings the State described severe physical, sexual, and psychological abuse of the son (including suicidal ideation and being handed a knife), and the court reviewed presentence reports and victim letters from both cases.
- The trial court announced statutory findings supporting consecutive sentences but used imprecise language (e.g., referred to "acts" and "victim" in the singular) and the written judgment erroneously recited R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) (a fact the State conceded was unsupported).
- Appellant appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing; (2) the findings were not supported by the record; and (3) the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to impose consecutive sentences | State: court made the necessary findings at the hearing and in the entry (necessity, proportionality, course-of-conduct/harm) | Barajas: court failed to make the distinct statutory findings, focused on a single offense/victim, and relied on unsupported (a)-factor in the entry | Majority: findings at hearing and entry were sufficient overall; affirmed consecutive sentence but remanded to correct the erroneous (a)-factor in the entry |
| Whether the record supports the court’s (C)(4)(b) finding that multiple offenses formed a course of conduct and caused harm so great/unusual that consecutive terms are warranted | State: record (two related prosecutions, PSI reports, victim testimony, letters) shows course of conduct and cross-victim harm; court reasonably considered both cases | Barajas: sentencing comments referenced only the son and a single conviction; no explicit finding that multiple convictions/offenses formed the required temporal/related course of conduct | Majority: record permits discerning the court engaged in the correct analysis and the findings are supported; Dissent: disagrees—court did not expressly find multiple offenses or temporal relationship and relied on singular-victim language |
| Whether the sentencing entry’s recitation of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) was supported by the record and whether that error is remediable | State concedes (a)-factor language was incorrect and should be removed from the entry | Barajas: (a)-factor is not applicable and its inclusion renders the entry unsupported; trial court must correct the entry | Court: remanded for the limited purpose of issuing a new sentencing entry omitting the unsupported (a)-factor; otherwise consecutive sentence affirmed in part and reversed in part |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the entry, though exact statutory phrasing is not required)