State v. Harris
2013 Ohio 2721
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Harris was convicted in three cases of escape and cocaine trafficking and placed on community control in each case.
- After violating community control, the trial court resentenced Harris to one year imprisonment in each case.
- The court ordered B-0705705 and B-1006851B sentences to run consecutively and B-0802251 concurrently, for a total of two years.
- Harris appealed, arguing two issues: (1) consecutive sentences violated RC 2929.14(C) due to missing required findings, and (2) court costs were imposed without proper notice of possible community-service in lieu of costs.
- The appellate court held the consecutive-sentencing findings were not made, vacated those sentences, and remanded for proper findings.
- The court also held the failure to notify about community-service in lieu of costs required vacating costs and remanding for proper notification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences require RC 2929.14(C) findings | Harris argues the court failed to make required statutory findings. | State contends the court should have made the findings but may do so on remand if necessary. | Consecutive sentences vacated and remanded for proper findings. |
| Notification of community-service in lieu of costs | Harris argues costs were imposed without proper community-service notice. | State argues proper notice is required and should be provided on remand. | Costs vacated in all three cases and remanded for proper community-service notification. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (2004-Ohio-7110) (requires resentencing with proper RC 2929.14(C) analysis after violation)
- State v. Baccus, 2005-Ohio-3704 (1st Dist. 2005) (establishes three-step RC 2929.14(C) framework for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Chapman, 2013-Ohio-2161 (1st Dist. Nos. C-120645 et al. 2013) (reignites RC 2929.14(C) findings requirement for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Erkins, 2012-Ohio-5372 (1st Dist. No. C-110675) (emphasizes three-step analysis and finding requirements)
- State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-781 (Supreme Court) (satisfies that community-service notification can be direct appeal issue)
- State v. Reynolds, 2012-Ohio-5153 (1st Dist. No. C-120241) (addresses community-service notification on appeal)
- State v. Dillard, 2012-Ohio-4018 (1st Dist. No. C-120058) (remedies for failure to notify about community-service costs)