State v. Emanuel
2017 Ohio 6989
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1995 Emanuel was convicted on multiple counts (aggravated robbery, robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault) and sentenced to 87–176 years, with 87 years of actual incarceration.
- On direct appeal (Emanuel I, 1996), this court reversed convictions only for merged Counts 3 and 4 (aggravated robbery/robbery regarding one victim) and affirmed the remainder; remand was solely to address those counts.
- The trial court took no immediate action; over the next two decades multiple motions and hearings occurred seeking vacation of Counts 3 and 4 and clarification of sentencing.
- In 2015 and 2016 the trial court issued entries purporting to reimpose or “implement” the original 1995 sentence and altered one felonious-assault term (Count 13) from 8–15 to 10–25 years, while finally vacating Counts 3 and 4.
- This court (Emanuel II and again here) held the trial court lacked authority to reimpose, alter, or otherwise resentence counts that were affirmed and undisturbed on appeal; only Counts 3 and 4 were to be vacated and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by reimposing or altering sentences on counts not vacated on appeal | State: Trial court exceeded jurisdiction by resentencing affirmed counts; it should only vacate merged Counts 3 and 4 | Emanuel: Trial court must comply with current sentencing requirements (e.g., R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)) when reissuing judgment, effectively requiring resentencing | Held: Trial court erred. It may only vacate Counts 3 and 4 and must not reimpose or modify sentences that were imposed in 1995 and left undisturbed. |
| Whether R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were required before imposing consecutive sentences now | State: Not applicable; trial court lacked authority to reimpose sentences so statutory findings are unnecessary | Emanuel: Because the case remained open, resentencing should follow current consecutive-sentence findings | Held: Moot — no findings required because the court was not authorized to impose or alter the existing consecutive sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (only sentences affected by appealed error are reviewed de novo; unaffected sentences remain in force)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (same principle: appellate reversal vacates only affected offenses)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (single final appealable order principle; a sentencing entry can memorialize multiple prior sentencing actions)