2018 Ohio 850
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Lee Jones pled guilty to two counts of rape arising from two separate 2001–2002 incidents; eight other counts and specifications were dismissed.
- At plea, the court removed sexually violent predator specifications and ordered a PSI.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent 3-year terms for the two rapes, to run consecutively to an existing aggregate 50‑year term Jones was already serving for prior rape convictions (making these consecutive to his prior sentences).
- Jones appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The trial court made oral findings at the sentencing hearing that consecutive sentences were necessary to punish Jones, were not disproportionate, and were necessary to protect the public given his extensive history of sexual offenses, but the journal entry did not set out the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
- The appellate court affirmed the sentence but remanded for the limited purpose of having the trial court incorporate its oral findings into a nunc pro tunc journal entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly made and recorded the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required for consecutive sentences | State: The court made the required findings at the sentencing hearing (necessity to punish/protect and non‑disproportionate) and may correct the journal entry to reflect that. | Jones: The trial court failed to find any of the conditions in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)–(c), so consecutive sentences are unsupported. | Court: Oral findings satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) but the journal entry omitted them; affirmed sentence and remanded to incorporate findings into the sentencing entry (nunc pro tunc). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make required consecutive‑sentence findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the journal entry; clerical omissions may be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry)
- State v. Qualls, 967 N.E.2d 718 (Ohio 2012) (nunc pro tunc entry may be used to correct clerical mistakes to reflect what occurred in open court)