State v. Kasson
2014 Ohio 4926
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Stephen Kasson pleaded guilty in 2007 to felonious assault (2nd degree), attempted felonious assault (3rd), attempted gross sexual imposition (5th), and misdemeanor criminal damaging.
- In September 2007 the trial court sentenced Kasson to 8, 5, and 1 years on the felonies (to run consecutively) and 90 days concurrent — total 14 years.
- Kasson later moved to vacate his sentence because he had not been advised of his appellate rights; after procedural steps including a delayed‑appeal denial, he filed a postconviction petition.
- On January 16, 2014 the trial court granted postconviction relief, advised Kasson of his appellate rights, and reimposed (adopted) the original 14‑year sentence.
- Kasson appealed the 2014 sentencing entry, arguing the trial court’s imposition of maximum and consecutive terms was contrary to law under the post‑H.B. 86 sentencing scheme.
- The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record when reimposing consecutive sentences after resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lawfully imposed maximum and consecutive sentences on resentencing after postconviction relief | State argued the court properly reinstated the original sentence | Kasson argued resentencing occurred after H.B. 86 and court had to comply with its stricter findings before imposing consecutive terms | Court held resentencing in 2014 required compliance with H.B. 86 and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); trial court failed to make required findings, so sentence vacated and remanded |
| Whether the appellate court may review the resentencing without a delayed appeal first | State relied on prior practice; court noted procedural path from State v. Future and Gover | Kasson pursued delayed‑appeal leave and, after denial, filed postconviction relief then obtained resentencing | Court treated the 2014 resentencing as subject to current law (H.B. 86) and reviewed the sentencing entry under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), vacating for lack of required findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006) (trial courts previously had discretion to impose sentences within statutory range absent specific findings)
- State v. Gover, 71 Ohio St.3d 577, 645 N.E.2d 1246 (1995) (procedural route for challenging final judgments and postconviction relief)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (2014) (trial courts must make and state the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record before imposing consecutive sentences)