State v. F.F.
2019 Ohio 455
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant F.F. was indicted on 17 counts including ten counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI), six counts of kidnapping, and one misdemeanor; charges involved two victims (his adult daughter and his granddaughter) spanning incidents from the late 1990s to 2017.
- Under a plea agreement, F.F. pled guilty to ten GSI counts and one count of importuning; kidnapping counts and specifications were dismissed.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent terms for counts as to each victim (four years for each group of GSI counts; six months for importuning) but ordered the sentence for the two victims to run consecutively, producing an aggregate eight-year term.
- On appeal, F.F. challenged the imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The trial court articulated purposes of sentencing and expressly found consecutive sentences were necessary to punish and to protect the public and that the harm to the two victims was so great that a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct; the court made only a passing reference to disproportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made all findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences | The State argued consecutive sentences were appropriate based on the court's on-the-record statements about punishment, protection of the public, and great/ unusual harm | F.F. argued the trial court failed to expressly find that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses | Court reversed and remanded: trial court failed to make all statutory findings (specifically the not-disproportionate finding) on the record and in the entry, so consecutive sentence vacated and case remanded to comply with R.C. 2929.14(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C) findings on the record before imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio App. 2013) (appellate review standard and authority regarding reversal when record does not support sentencing findings)