State v. Hicks
2019 Ohio 870
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Leon Hicks pled guilty to attempted domestic violence in CR 624348 and earlier pled guilty in CR 613379, where he was placed on community control; he was also on community control in an unrelated case CR 604937.
- While on community control Hicks committed a new domestic-violence-related offense (CR 624348).
- At the March 14, 2018 hearing the court found Hicks violated community control in CR 613379, revoked/terminated community control, and sentenced Hicks to 12 months in CR 624348 and 12 months in CR 613379, to be served consecutively (aggregate 24 months).
- At sentencing the judge reviewed Hicks’s lengthy criminal history, stated consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and to punish, noted the new offense was committed while under community control, and said the sentences were not disproportionate compared to others.
- The trial court’s journal entry for CR 624348 included the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings; the journal entry for CR 613379 did not, although the findings were made on the record.
- Hicks appealed, arguing the court (1) failed to make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings and (2) the record did not support consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences | State: The court made the required findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporated them in CR 624348 entry | Hicks: Trial court failed to make/record the required findings (proportionality in particular) | Court: Findings were made at the hearing and are discernible; affirmed (but remand for nunc pro tunc in CR 613379 to incorporate findings into that journal entry) |
| Whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support consecutive sentences | State: Record (violent conduct while on community control, long criminal history, prior sanctions ineffective) supports consecutive terms | Hicks: Sentences are excessive and unnecessary for incapacitation, deterrence, or rehabilitation | Court: Under deferential R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) review, record supports findings; affirmed |
| Whether omission from one journal entry renders sentences void | State: Omission is clerical and correctable by nunc pro tunc | Hicks: Absence of findings in CR 613379 entry invalidates consecutive sentence | Court: Omission does not make sentence contrary to law; remand for nunc pro tunc entry to reflect actual oral findings |
| Whether proportionality requirement satisfied on the record | State: Judge’s remarks comparing sentences to others and citing criminal history suffice | Hicks: Judge did not state the proportionality language verbatim | Court: Exact statutory wording not required; proportionality discernible from record; upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them into the journal entry; clerical omissions may be corrected nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1999) (trial court must note it engaged in sentencing analysis and specify bases for decision)
- State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio 2013) (appellate clear-and-convincing standard is deferential; burden is on appellate court to clearly and convincingly find record does not support trial court’s findings)