State v. Irwin-Debraux, 2020 Ohio 4591

Alyssa Irwin-Debraux pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer after a high-speed chase in a stolen car while under the influence.
During the pursuit, a motorist swerved to avoid a head-on collision with her vehicle, struck another car, which then was struck by a police cruiser; the driver of the struck car died.
At initial sentencing the court imposed three consecutive prison terms totaling 13 years but did not make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings required for two of the counts.
This court remanded for resentencing limited to making findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); on remand the trial court reimposed the same sentences and articulated the required consecutive-sentence findings on the record and in an amended entry.
Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues; Irwin-Debraux filed pro se objections claiming the sentence was contrary to law and asserting officer misconduct, drug-use explanations, and youth as mitigating factors.

Issue	State's Argument	Irwin-Debraux's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court made the required consecutive-sentence findings on remand under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	The court made the required findings on the record and in the amended entry	Original sentencing lacked findings; remand required to address that error	Findings were made on remand and are sufficient; consecutive sentences affirmed
Whether the consecutive 13-year aggregate sentence is contrary to law	Sentences comply with statute; court was permitted to impose consecutive terms after making findings	Aggregate term is excessive and legally improper	Not contrary to law; no non-frivolous claim shown
Whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the consecutive-sentence findings	PSI, plea, factual record (high-speed chase, intoxication, victim impact) support findings	Officers’ pursuit misconduct caused the death; she did not directly cause death; drug-use mitigation; youth	Record supports findings; defendant’s factual denials are foreclosed by guilty plea; no clear-and-convincing basis to vacate
Whether other sentencing statutes or standards (R.C. 2929.11/12/13/41) were violated or provide grounds for relief	Remand was limited to consecutive-sentence findings; other claims are barred by res judicata or previously decided	Sentencing inconsistent with those statutes; aggregate sentence unlawful	Other statutory challenges are precluded in this limited remand; no non-frivolous appellate issue

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for appointed counsel to raise frivolous-appeal notices and filing of an Anders brief)
State v. Brewer, 80 N.E.3d 1257 (Ohio 2017) (remand required when consecutive sentences imposed without making required statutory findings)