State v. Kunzer, 2019 Ohio 1042

Defendant Matthew Kunzer, an inmate at Crawford County Jail, was indicted for two counts of fourth-degree felony assault for actions during a March 2, 2018 altercation with Deputy Mark Landis and Sergeant Tyson Estrada.
After a jury trial on July 19, 2018, Kunzer was convicted on both counts; sentenced August 29, 2018 to 18 months on each count, to run consecutively for an aggregate 36 months, and ordered consecutive to a sentence in another Crawford County case.
Kunzer appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) insufficiency of the evidence as to the assault on Deputy Landis, (2) failure to make required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and (3) failure to announce that the new consecutive sentences would run consecutive to a previously imposed term.
Trial evidence: Kunzer acted belligerently in his cell, resisted restraint, grabbed Estrada in a choke hold, Deputy Landis intervened and was thrown/knocked back, sustaining bumps, bruises, and a knocked wind.
Trial court found and incorporated findings that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and not disproportionate, referencing Kunzer’s violent history and that he was already serving a sentence in another case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for assault on Deputy Landis	State: testimony and circumstantial evidence show Kunzer knowingly caused physical harm	Kunzer: injuries to Landis were accidental/incident of intervening, not knowingly caused	Court: Evidence sufficient; knowledge can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; conviction upheld
Trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences	State: court made necessary findings at hearing and in entry showing protection/punishment and non-disproportionality	Kunzer: court did not state which (a),(b), or (c) factor applied	Court: Findings satisfied (history of criminal conduct supports (c)); no reversal
Ordering new sentences consecutive to an existing sentence without separate findings	State: no separate second set of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings is required; court’s remarks and entry made direction clear	Kunzer: court failed to announce at hearing that sentences would run consecutive to prior Crawford County sentence	Court: No error—court’s oral statements and entry show intent; ordering consecutive to prior term was proper

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1997) (follow-up on Jenks regarding constitutional amendment context)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight review)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (consecutive sentencing findings need not include specific wording; may be inferred from record)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1988) (circumstantial evidence has probative value equal to direct evidence)