State v. Kozic
2017 Ohio 946
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jamie Kozic was convicted on multiple counts stemming from burglaries and drug offenses; originally sentenced to a 20-year aggregate term.
- On direct appeal (Kozic I) this court vacated one possession count and ordered a limited remand to remove that count from sentencing and to merge two drug-trafficking counts (counts 16 and 17).
- On limited resentencing the trial court imposed an 18-year aggregate term but did not expressly make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings.
- The state argued the court lacked jurisdiction on remand to revisit consecutive-sentence findings and that res judicata barred the challenge; Kozic argued the court failed to make the required consecutive-sentence findings.
- This court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to relitigate consecutive-sentence findings on the limited remand, but found the court erred by re-sentencing both merged counts (entered concurrent sentences rather than vacating one), and remanded for a limited resentencing so the state must elect which merged charge to sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings on remand | The state: court lacked jurisdiction on limited remand; res judicata bars re-litigation | Kozic: court failed to make the required consecutive-sentence findings at resentencing and in the entry | Held: No error — under this court's prior limited remand the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider consecutive-sentence findings (following Z. Kozic) |
| Whether the trial court properly merged counts 16 and 17 for sentencing | The state did not contest merger compliance but had the court re-sentence both counts | Kozic: counts 16 and 17 were ordered merged on prior appeal and one sentence should be vacated | Held: Error — entry re-sentenced both merged counts; concurrent sentences on merged counts is improper. Reversed in part and remanded for limited resentencing; state must elect which merged charge to pursue for sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate consecutive-sentence findings, but need not use talismanic language)
- State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (merged counts require vacatur of one sentence; concurrent sentencing on merged counts does not satisfy merger)