State v. Leet
2016 Ohio 138
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2010 Leet drove with others to buy drugs, was allegedly robbed, then later shot and killed Nathan Gay and Harvey Sims in a wooded area; he was convicted of two counts of purposeful murder, related felonious-assault counts, tampering with evidence, and multiple firearm specifications.
- After conviction, this court reversed once because the trial court improperly denied a motion to suppress (Leet I), and on retrial Leet was reconvicted and sentenced to an aggregate 36 years to life.
- On a subsequent direct appeal the court found arguable merit in a claim that the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences and remanded for resentencing (Leet II).
- At the May 13, 2015 resentencing hearing the trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record (necessity to protect/public, proportionality, and that the offenses were part of a course of conduct causing unusually great harm) and reimposed the same consecutive aggregate sentence.
- The written judgment entry (May 19, 2015) reimposed the sentence but omitted the statutory findings; the court below held the oral findings at the hearing supported consecutive sentences and the omission in the entry was a clerical error correctable by nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Trial court made the required statutory findings at the resentencing hearing; record supports findings that consecutive terms are necessary, not disproportionate, and the offenses involved an unusually great/serious harm as part of a course of conduct | Leet contended (via appellate counsel) that consecutive terms were improper because the court failed originally to make statutory findings and, on remand, he expected concurrent sentences; continued challenge to consecutive imposition was advanced but no meritorious claim identified | Court affirmed: on-the-record findings satisfy R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and are supported by the record; consecutive sentence upheld |
| Whether omission of statutory findings from the written sentencing entry renders the sentence contrary to law | State: oral findings at hearing suffice where made; omission is clerical and can be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry | Leet: written entry lacks required findings, so judgment is defective | Held: omission is a clerical error; sentence not contrary to law; remand only to issue nunc pro tunc entry correcting clerk’s entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for counsel filing brief concluding appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate court must conduct independent review when counsel files an Anders brief)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make statutory consecutive-sentence findings on record but need not state reasons in judgment entry; clerical omissions may be corrected nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Rodeffer, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (appellate review of consecutive sentences governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard)