State v. Finney
2014 Ohio 1054
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Finney pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery (ages 12 and 14) in May 2012, both third-degree felonies.
- June 27, 2012, trial court sentenced Finney to three years on each count, consecutive, classified him as a Tier III sex offender, and imposed a five-year postrelease control term.
- Finney timely appealed raising three assignments of error related to sentencing and plea validity.
- First assignment: trial court failed to make RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing consecutive sentences (HB 86 revived standards).
- Court acknowledges Venes governing post-HB 86 timing but nonetheless finds error for missing required findings and remands for resentencing.
- Second and third assignments: arguments on allied offenses and Crim.R. 11 compliance; court sustains none, overrules later assignments, and remands for resentencing on the first issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences: required findings under RC 2929.14(C)(4)? | State argues consecutive sentences permissible without express findings. | Finney contends inadequate findings render consecutive sentences improper. | Trial court failed to make required findings; sentencing vacated and remanded. |
| Are the two counts allied offenses of similar import? | State argues separate offenses before two victims are distinct, not allied. | Finney argues merger possible due to vague indictment referencing conduct against both victims. | Counts not allied; separate offenses; consecutive sentencing upheld subject to remand for proper findings on first issue. |
| Was the guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Crim.R. 11? | State contends plea colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11 requirements. | Finney claims plea was not valid due to self-incrimination advisement deficiencies. | Crim.R. 11 compliance affirmed; plea valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (8th Dist. 2013) (RB 2929.14(C)(4) findings required before consecutive sentences)
- State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-489 (8th Dist. 2013) (consecutive-sentencing considerations under HB 86)
- State v. Huber, 2012-Ohio-6139 (8th Dist. 2012) (HB 86 findings framework in consecutive sentencing)
- State v. Damron, 2011-Ohio-2268 (Ohio St. 2011) (merger vs. consecutive sentencing for multiple counts)
- State v. Black, 2013-Ohio-4908 (8th Dist. 2013) (permissibility of multiple sentences for multiple victims)