2014 Ohio 5436
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant-appellant Dennis Fulford appeals three concurrent sentences from three cases (CR-12-567594-A, CR-12-569285-A, CR-12-570001-A).
- All three sentences were intended to be consecutive after guilty pleas on April 4, 2013.
- The trial court sentenced 3 years (CR-567594-A), 1 year (CR-569285-A), and 2 years (CR-570001-A).
- The court did not make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings justifying consecutiveness; the State concedes this deficiency.
- This court reverses and remands to allow the trial court to make the required findings and incorporate them on resentencing.
- The appellate court independently agrees the findings were missing and directs limited remand for on-record findings regarding consecutiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive-sentencing findings missing | State concedes lack of 2929.14(C)(4) findings | Fulford argues error in imposing consecutive terms | Consecutive sentences reversed and remanded for proper findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (reaffirms requirement of on-record findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Ziska, 2014-Ohio-4692 (2014-Ohio-4692) (addresses on-record findings for concurrent/consecutive terms)
- State v. Nia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99387, 2014-Ohio-2527 (2014-Ohio-2527) (remand for limited purpose to determine if findings can be made)
- State v. Hammond, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100656, 2014-Ohio-4673 (2014-Ohio-4673) (discusses appellate review of felonious-sentencing findings)
- State v. Venes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891 (2013-Ohio-1891) (cited regarding standard of review in sentencing)