State v. Hunter, 2023 Ohio 1317

Appellant Troy Hunter was indicted in two Butler County cases for grand theft of a motor vehicle and identity fraud; he pled guilty to one count in each case pursuant to a plea agreement.
At plea and sentencing Hunter admitted he was on probation in another court; he waived a presentence investigation and asked to be sentenced to prison.
Victim testimony described thefts from gym locker rooms, use of victims’ cards/checks, and significant emotional and financial harm to at least one victim.
Trial court sentenced Hunter to 12 months (Case 410) and 18 months (Case 421) and announced the sentences would run consecutively, making the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record (including subsections (b) and (c)).
Hunter appealed only Case 421, arguing the record did not support the court’s (b) and (c) findings for consecutive sentences.
The appellate court performed a de novo review, concluded the record supports the (b) finding and affirmed the consecutive sentences, but remanded for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc entry because the written judgment failed to incorporate the (b) finding made at the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: trial court made required findings at hearing; record supports those findings and consecutive terms	Hunter: record does not support (b) and (c); first-time felony offender, no prison history, property crimes not "great or unusual," public protection not shown	Affirmed. De novo review finds record supports (b) (course of conduct; harm so great no single term adequate); consecutive sentences upheld; remand only to enter nunc pro tunc judgment reflecting the (b) finding

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and state R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing; clerical omission in the entry can be corrected by nunc pro tunc)