State v. Bass
2015 Ohio 3979
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Lamar R. Bass was convicted in two separate indictments for two separate shootings (Aug. 24, 2011 and Sept. 12, 2011) and sentenced to a total of 21 years; the cases were joined for trial because the same gun was used.
- On prior appeal this court found the trial court failed to make required consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (H.B. 86) and remanded for reconsideration.
- At a resentencing hearing the trial court made verbal findings and issued amended entries: an 8-year aggregate sentence in case No. 11CR-5183, a 10-year sentence in case No. 11CR-5187, to be served consecutively for an 18-year total.
- The amended entry in case No. 11CR-5183 stated all firearm specifications were to be served concurrently, reducing that case’s total from 11 to 8 years.
- The State appealed? (procedural posture: Bass appealed the amended sentences) On appeal this court affirmed most rulings but found the trial court erred by ordering two mandatory firearm-specification terms to run concurrently, which is contrary to R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a); the court reversed in part and remanded for limited resentencing to correct that error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bass) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court complied with remand and H.B. 86 (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)) when imposing consecutive sentences | Court followed remand by making the required statutory findings on the record and imposing consecutive sentences | Court failed to state on the record whether consecutive sentences were appropriate under H.B. 86 despite making findings | Trial court complied; findings satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); first assignment overruled |
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed | Consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public, not disproportionate, and supported by defendant's criminal history (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c)) | Consecutive terms improper; trial court needed talismanic phrasing selecting one subsection | Findings met statutory requirements; no talismanic words required; consecutive sentences otherwise upheld |
| Whether two firearm specifications (R.C. 2941.145 and 2941.146) could be run concurrently | Trial court’s amended entry ran the specifications concurrently, reducing aggregate term | Specifications should merge or not both be consecutive | The specifications are penalty enhancements (not allied offenses) and, under R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a), mandatory firearm terms of 3 and 5 years must be served consecutively; concurrent service was contrary to law — reversed and remanded for correction |
| Whether the court sentenced Bass for a crime that did not occur (court’s remark that two people were shot) | Court correctly observed there were two separate shootings leading to separate indictments | Court apparently sentenced based on an erroneous belief that two people were shot in the same incident | Court’s remark was accurate — two separate victims were shot in distinct incidents; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridge v. Park Natl. Bank, 169 Ohio App.3d 384 (10th Dist. 2006) (appellate mandate and trial court’s duty on remand)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them into the entry; no talismanic words required)
- State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (2011) (firearm specifications are penalty enhancements, not offenses subject to merger)