State v. Harris
2018 Ohio 2850
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Drakkar Harris pleaded guilty in case B-1403840 (2014 robberies) in Feb 2015 and remained on bond pending sentencing.
- While on bond, Harris committed additional robberies and a felonious assault charged in B-1501428; he pleaded guilty to those counts at a May 25, 2017 joint sentencing.
- The state recommended a global, multi-case 25-year term composed of an aggregate 14 years for B-1403840 and B-1501428 to run consecutively to an existing 11-year sentence in B-1502209.
- At the sentencing hearing the court announced: concurrent terms totaling 3 years in B-1403840; consecutive terms totaling 14 years in B-1501428; and that the B-1403840 and B-1501428 aggregate 14-year term would run consecutively to the 11-year B-1502209 term (totaling 25 years).
- The journalized entries, however, failed to state that the B-1403840 and B-1501428 sentences were to run concurrently with each other and instead made each run consecutively to B-1502209, creating a 28-year aggregate on the face of the entries.
- Harris appealed, arguing (1) the consecutive sentences within B-1501428 were unsupported, and (2) the written entries did not reflect the orally imposed 25-year global sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive terms within B-1501428 were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: consecutive terms were justified given violent escalation, firearm use, and jail infractions | Harris: record insufficient to show consecutive terms were necessary or proportionate | Affirmed—court found ample support for consecutive terms (violence, firearm use, extensive infractions) |
| Whether written sentencing entries match the oral sentence (global 25-year vs. 28-year in entries) | State: the oral pronouncement was the controlling sentence; entries contain clerical error | Harris: entries reflect 28 years and thus are incorrect; oral sentence was 25 years | Remanded—court found entries inconsistent with oral pronouncement and ordered nunc pro tunc entries to reflect concurrent B-1403840 and B-1501428 aggregation of 14 years run consecutive to the 11-year term (25 years total) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. White, 997 N.E.2d 629 (appellate standard to modify/vacate felony sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Qualls, 967 N.E.2d 718 (nunc pro tunc entry can correct sentencing entry to reflect what was actually imposed at hearing)
- State v. Lester, 958 N.E.2d 142 (clerical errors, mechanical mistakes, and omissions apparent on the record are correctable via Crim.R. 36)