State v. Green, 2013 Ohio 1508

Green pleaded guilty to multiple counts across two cases and received an aggregate term of 33.5 years in 2012, with consecutive terms later found to be improper.
The trial court imposed consecutive sentences but failed to make the required statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
At sentencing, the court did not use a findings worksheet or oral findings to support the consecutive sentences.
In case B-1000217, terms for aggravated burglary and rape were 11 years each and for felonious assault 8 years, all intended to run consecutively to counts in case B-1003635; the aggregate term was 33.5 years.
The offenses were committed before the September 30, 2011 HB 86 effective date, so the maximum for a first-degree felony was 10 years, not 11.
The clerical entry mistakenly indicated aggravated robbery; the record, however, shows the offenses were aggravated burglary as charged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive sentences without findings	State concedes no R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were made.	Green argued the trial court erred by imposing consecutive terms without proper findings.	Yes; improper consecutive sentences vacated.
HB 86 pre-date sentencing maximums	State concedes the maximum for each first-degree felony was 10 years since offenses occurred before HB 86.	Green contends the court could impose extended terms; misapplication of HB 86.	Sustained; maximum terms set to 10 years per offense.

State v. Alexander, 2012-Ohio-3349 (1st Dist. Nos. C-110828 and C-110829, 2012) (three-step framework for consecutive-sentencing findings)
State v. Cowins, 2013-Ohio-277 (1st Dist. No. C-120191, 2013) (consecutive sentences without required findings are contrary to law)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2008) (statutory constraint on sentencing terms)
State v. Colgrove, 175 Ohio St. 437, 195 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1964) (court has no power to substitute or exceed statutory sentence)