Background

• Johnson was indicted on 13 counts of rape and kidnapping involving two young victims; he pled guilty to two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping with various specifications; the trial court imposed consecutive 25-to-life terms for the two rapes and ordered them served consecutively for 50-to-life; Johnson was classified as a Tier III sex offender; the court merged counts and imposed the sentence under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentencing framework; Johnson appeals challenging the consecutive-sentence findings and the length/concurrency of the sentence; the appellate court reverses and modifies to 25-to-life concurrent terms; no other dispositions are at issue.
• The acts involve forcible sexual abuse of young children, with the younger child discovered with Johnson in the act; the mother reported the incident, and subsequent investigations revealed abuse of the older child as well; Johnson had a prior criminal history but limited sexually related offenses; the court at sentencing emphasized heinous nature and age of victims as basis for consecutive terms.
• At sentencing, the court stated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and to punish the offender, and that the crimes occurred on several occasions; the court’s rationale did not clearly articulate the three-part R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis with proper second- and third-tier findings; the record lacks explicit support for a finding that the consecutive terms were not disproportionate or that the harm was so great or unusual as to require consecutive terms.
• This Court held that the trial court failed to make the required determinations under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and that the record does not clearly support the necessary findings; the appropriate remedy is to modify the sentence to concurrent terms of 25 years to life.
• The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new entry reflecting concurrent 25-years-to-life terms, without altering the offender’s Tier III designation.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (requirement to make and support findings; no exact recitation needed if record shows proper analysis)
• State v. Simons, 2004-Ohio-6061 (Ohio Ct. App.) (heinousness/age considerations inherent in offenses; not alone supports C(4) findings)