State v. Elliston
2014 Ohio 5628
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Elliston was indicted in Shelby County on five counts, including robbery and multiple heroin trafficking counts.
- He initially pled not guilty, then changed his plea to guilty toCount One (amended to attempted robbery) and Count Two under a plea agreement.
- Counts Three, Four, and Five were dismissed as part of the plea deal.
- The trial court sentenced Elliston to 36 months on Count One and 11 months on Count Two, consecutive for 47 months total, plus a 10-month term in a separate case, to be served consecutively.
- Elliston appealed challenging the trial court’s failure to make specific findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences. | Elliston argues the court failed to articulate the necessary findings. | Elliston contends the findings were not properly stated or incorporated. | Consecutive sentences were properly imposed; the required findings were stated on the record and incorporated into the sentencing entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-11-07 (2012)) (necessary consecutive-sentence findings supported by record when reviewing)
- State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 (Ohio Supreme Court (2014)) (explicit standards for confirming consecutive sentences; no talismanic recital required)
- State v. Sharp, 2014-Ohio-4140 (3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01 (2014)) (requirement to state findings on the record and incorporate them)
- State v. Upkins, 2013-Ohio-3986 (3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-13-02 (2013)) (verbatim statutory recitation can satisfy findings under 2929.14(C)(4))
- State v. Wilkerson, 2014-Ohio-980 (3d Dist. Logan Nos. 8-13-06 and 8-13-07 (2014)) (consecutive sentences satisfied by findings that protect the public or punish the offender)
- State v. Ramos, 2007-Ohio-767 (3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-06-24 (2007)) (clear-and-convincing standard remains viable for appellate review)
- State v. Wilcox, 2014-Ohio-4954 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2013-CA-94 (2014)) (supports conjunctive reading of required findings)
- State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391 (2001) (finding how to apply 2929.14(C)(4) findings)
- State v. Rhodes, 2006-Ohio-2401 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-10-426 (2006)) (discusses the standard of review and findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Tyson, 2005-Ohio-1082 (3d Dist. Allen Nos. 1-04-38 and 1-04-39 (2005)) (nostrict requirements for findings under 2929.14(C)(4))
- State v. Peddicord, 2013-Ohio-3398 (3d Dist. Henry No. 7-12-24 (2013)) (discusses required findings for consecutive sentences)