State v. Hill
2014 Ohio 1965
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Anthony Hill pleaded guilty to 16 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor (15 fourth-degree, 1 second-degree); 14 other counts were nolled. These offenses were investigated during an earlier case (12CR5603) in which Hill pled to attempted rape and received a 3-year sentence.
- At the July 2013 plea/sentencing hearing the court accepted the plea and immediately proceeded to sentencing. The state recommended an aggregate 9-year term for the pandering counts, to run concurrent with the existing 3-year sentence. Hill sought a lesser term.
- The trial court sentenced Hill to 12 months on each fourth-degree count (concurrent), and 5 years on the second-degree count, ordered consecutive to the 12-month aggregate — an aggregate 6-year sentence for the instant case. The court then ordered that 6-year term to run consecutive to the 3-year term in 12CR5603.
- Hill appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by imposing greater-than-minimum sentences, and (2) the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without required findings.
- The appellate court upheld the nonminimum terms, finding the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. But it reversed and remanded on consecutive sentencing because the sentencing hearing transcript did not show the court engaged in the statutorily required analysis under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), even though the written entry recited the statutory findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing more-than-minimum sentences | State: nonminimum terms appropriate given seriousness and recidivism factors | Hill: court abused discretion and misweighed R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, meriting minimum terms | Affirmed: court considered statutes and relied on recidivism factors; nonminimum sentences not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether consecutive sentences were improperly imposed | State: consecutive terms permissible under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and trial court made required findings | Hill: consecutive order improper; cites R.C. 2929.41(A) and alleges required findings were not made at sentencing | Reversed and remanded: written entry recited statutory findings but transcript lacks evidence court engaged in the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis at the sentencing hearing; findings cannot be supplied solely by boilerplate journal entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (review standard for felony sentence appeals)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (invalidated pre‑Foster statutory restraints on judicial factfinding for sentencing)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (legislative response and interpretation regarding reenactment of consecutive sentencing findings)