State v. Finch-Ball
2021 Ohio 2221
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Burton Finch-Ball faced two separate criminal cases: a 2019 protection-order violation (charged as a fifth-degree felony due to a prior conviction) and, eight months later, a 2020 domestic-violence charge (fourth-degree felony) plus additional protection-order counts.
- The cases were not formally joined, but Finch-Ball pleaded guilty to one count in each case; remaining counts were dismissed and a PSI was ordered.
- At sentencing the State sought consecutive prison terms; Finch-Ball sought community control. The trial court imposed 6 months (protection-order case) and 12 months (domestic-violence case), to be served consecutively (total 18 months).
- The oral sentencing did not include express findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); the trial court referenced the prosecutor’s arguments and noted the offenses were separated by about eight–nine months.
- The court’s written sentencing entries, however, included boilerplate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (invoking the “course of conduct” subsection). Finch-Ball appealed, arguing the consecutive sentences lacked statutory support. The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument (Plaintiff) | Finch-Ball's Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing required to impose consecutive terms | Trial court effectively adopted the prosecutor’s sentencing position; findings appear in the journal entries so consecutive terms are proper | The court failed to make the required statutory findings on the record at the sentencing hearing; reliance on the prosecutor’s recommendation does not satisfy the statute | Reversed and remanded: court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing (Bonnell requires on-the-record findings) |
| Whether the record supports the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) finding (offenses as part of a course of conduct and harm so great/unusual) | Prosecutor emphasized recidivism, separate prior convictions, lack of rehabilitation, and the offenses occurring while on bond | Finch-Ball argued the two convictions involved different victims, occurred ~8 months apart, and the record lacks evidence of a single course of conduct or unusually great harm | Appellate court did not decide the merits of this factual challenge; because on-the-record statutory findings were missing, the sentence was vacated and the case remanded so the trial court can consider and make the necessary findings on resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (establishes appellate standard for modifying felony sentences: clear and convincing evidence required)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the entry)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)