State v. Gunnels, 2019 Ohio 2822

Defendant Kevin Gunnels, high on PCP and driving over 100 mph, caused a crash that killed two people; he pled guilty to two counts of first‑degree aggravated vehicular homicide and three misdemeanors (two criminal damaging counts and one OVI).
At the same hearing the court sentenced Gunnels in a separate pending felony domestic‑violence case and ordered that one‑year sentence to run consecutive to the 16‑year aggregate vehicular‑homicide term, producing a 17‑year total.
The trial court imposed consecutive sentences after making the statutory findings on the record and included a presentence investigation (PSI); it denied defense counsel’s request for a penalty mitigation (psychological) report.
The court stated Gunnels would receive credit for time served but did not calculate or journalize the number of days; the State concedes that omission was error.
The appeals court affirmed the consecutive sentences, affirmed denial of a mitigation report, but reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine and journalize jail‑time credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record	The court made required findings and the record (multiple prior felonies, driving without license, pending domestic‑violence case, non‑isolated conduct) supports consecutive terms	Although the court made findings, the record does not support imposing consecutive sentences	Affirmed — appellate court found record supports the statutory findings and upheld consecutive sentences
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying a penalty mitigation (psychological) report	Court had discretion; a current PSI was available and sufficient for mitigation purposes	Mitigation report was needed because Gunnels had special‑education history, medications, and sought substance‑abuse treatment; PSI only ‘‘mentioned’’ these matters	Affirmed — denial was not an abuse of discretion given the existing PSI and no showing that additional expert evaluation was reasonably necessary
Whether court erred in failing to calculate and journalize jail‑time credit	State concedes error; sentencing entry deferred calculation to sheriff but did not include the number in the journal	Court orally said ‘‘credit for time served’’ but did not include the factual calculation in the journal entry as required by statute	Reversed and remanded — trial court must determine, notify, and include the exact days of jail‑time credit in the sentencing entry

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (2014) (trial court must make statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences; reasons need not be stated but record must show correct analysis)
State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio App.) (appellate review of consecutive sentences is highly deferential; affirm unless record clearly and convincingly does not support findings)
State v. Esparza, 529 N.E.2d 192 (Ohio 1988) (trial court has discretion to determine whether additional expert services are reasonably necessary for sentencing mitigation)