State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion), 140 Ohio St. 3d 209

Ohio limiting statutes on consecutive sentences have evolved since SB 2 (1996), with findings and reasons previously required at sentencing.
Foster severed judicial-fact finding requirements, removing the need to state reasons for consecutive sentences after Apprendi/Blakely lines of cases.
Ice (2009) limited Foster by allowing state legislatures to revive stacked-sentence regimes for proportionality and consistency, not automatically reviving Foster rules.
Hodge (2010) held Ice did not automatically revive severed provisions; court concluded no duty to make findings unless the General Assembly enacted new legislation.
HB 86 (2011) revived some language and added a statutory presumption for concurrent sentences, while reinstating certain required findings for consecutive sentences but not requiring reasons.
In Bonnell, the trial court imposed eight years five months consecutive for vending-machine thefts, but did not complete all statutorily required findings or fully incorporate them into the judgment entry, prompting review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must the court make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences?	Bonnell contends failure to make all required findings violates the statute.	State argues no talismanic words or formal recital required; only substantial findings in the record.	Yes; required findings must be made and incorporated.
Is it necessary to state reasons supporting findings when imposing consecutive sentences?	Findings alone are insufficient without reasons in support.	Legislature repealed prior mandate to give reasons; no such duty exists.	No; reasons are not required to be stated.
Can a nunc pro tunc entry cure failure to make required findings at sentencing?	Clerical fixes might salvage compliance after the fact.	Nunc pro tunc cannot cure a failure to make findings at the time of sentencing.	No; nunc pro tunc cannot cure initial failure to make findings.
Does the record in Bonnell support the required findings and their proportionality?	Record shows Bonnell’s atrocious record and seriousness of offenses justify consecutive terms.	Record does not clearly show proportionality findings or the three concomitant findings (a), (b), (c).	Record does not support all required findings; remand for proper sentencing.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (severed mandatory judicial-fact findings for consecutive sentences under Apprendi-era reasoning)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (upheld state-constrained discretion to impose consecutive sentences without automatic judicial fact-finding)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (held Ice did not automatically revive Foster-era provisions; no duty to find absent new legislation)
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (interpreted 'find' as noting the court engaged in analysis and considered criteria)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012-Ohio-1111) (nunc pro tunc corrections; careful about substantive corrections to findings)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010-Ohio-5705) (nunc pro tunc cannot cure initial failure to impose certain requirements)
State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (2007-Ohio-1533) (court speaks through journal; findings must be discernible in the record)