2019 Ohio 3957
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Ralph M. Goad was indicted on 13 counts (multiple burglaries, breaking-and-entering, and one attempted burglary) arising from a series of offenses in 2016. Several victims; one victim suffered two offenses.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement Goad pled guilty to amended felonies; the State recommended a total 15-year prison term and the court initially imposed 15 years (concurrent and consecutive components).
- On direct appeal this court vacated part of the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court had not made the required consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- At the August 1, 2018 resentencing hearing the State and the court focused on Goad’s lengthy felony history (numerous prior felonies and prior opportunities for community control/probation) and the pattern of offenses.
- The trial court again imposed a 15-year aggregate term, announcing findings at the hearing that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and to punish Goad, were not disproportionate, and that Goad’s criminal-history justified consecutive terms.
- The court incorporated those findings into the written judgment entry dated August 7, 2018; Goad appealed claiming the trial court again failed to make the statutory findings.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Goad's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing consecutive sentences | The court conducted a meaningful consideration at the resentencing hearing and expressly found consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and punish, not disproportionate, and that Goad's criminal history satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) | The court again failed to make the requisite statutory findings required for consecutive terms | Affirmed—trial court made the required findings at the hearing and included them in the written judgment entry; consecutive sentences are supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences: reversal only if record clearly and convincingly does not support statutory findings or sentence is contrary to law)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (2014) (trial court must make required consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the journal entry)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (definition of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)