2022 Ohio 1950
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Antoine T. Briggs pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide (Feb 2017 crash; victim killed; BAC .209; license suspended), possession of cocaine (Sept 2016; .179 g found), and burglary (June 2016; fingerprints matched).
- At an August 30, 2018 combined sentencing the trial court imposed maximum terms and ordered them consecutively for an aggregate 15-year term; Briggs appealed.
- This court previously reversed and remanded because the trial court removed Briggs from the courtroom during sentencing, requiring a new sentencing hearing.
- On October 22, 2020 the trial court resentenced Briggs to the same consecutive maximum terms and filed amended judgment entries (Nov. 16, 2020) that recited the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
- Briggs appealed, arguing plain error because the trial court failed to make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record at the resentencing hearing and erred in finding the offenses were an "ongoing course of conduct."
- The appellate court held the record did not support a course-of-conduct link among the three temporally and factually distinct offenses and that the trial court failed to make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) proportionality finding on the record at sentencing; it reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Briggs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court committed plain error by imposing consecutive sentences without making the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record at sentencing | The court made sufficient findings (in remarks and entries); outcome would be the same; entries incorporated findings | The court failed to make the proportionality and required statutory findings on the record at the sentencing hearing; reliance on entries is insufficient under Bonnell | Held for Briggs: trial court failed to make required on-the-record R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; sentence contrary to law; reversed and remanded |
| Whether the three offenses constituted an "ongoing course of conduct" under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) | The offenses (or multiple separate courses) satisfy the statute; substance abuse ties conduct together | Offenses were separate in time and nature (June 2016, Sept 2016, Feb 2017) with no factual link; not a single course of conduct | Held for Briggs: record lacks factual or temporal connection showing a common scheme or pattern; court's "ongoing course" finding unsupported |
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 sentencing entry; reasons need not be stated)
- State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (Ohio 2018) (reaffirming Bonnell: findings must be made at hearing and in entry)
- State v. Sapp, 105 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 2004) ("course of conduct" requires some factual link between offenses)
- State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (absent order, terms are concurrent; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) governs consecutive terms)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (Ohio 2003) (appellate standard for reviewing sentencing)