State v. Lunder
2014 Ohio 5341
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Wayne Lunder was indicted in a 13-count multi-victim sex-offense case.
- Counts 1–11 involved Jane Doe I with offenses 2007–2012, including attempted rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, corrupting another with drugs, and endangering children; SVP specifications applied where noted.
- Counts 12–13 involved Jane Doe II with rape and kidnapping offenses and SVP specifications.
- Appellant pled guilty to Count 2 (gross sexual imposition, third-degree felony) and amended Count 12 (attempted rape, second-degree felony); SVP specifications were deleted and remaining counts dismissed.
- At sentencing, the trial court imposed 5 years on Count 2 and 8 years on Count 12, to be served consecutively (total 13 years), classified appellant as Tier III sex offender, with 5 years of postrelease control.
- He appeals, challenging consecutive/maximum sentence findings, Crim.R. 11 compliance, and denial of bifurcation; court remands for nunc pro tunc correction of sentencing entry.]
- Issues:[{
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentencing findings under RC 2929.14(C)(4) | State argues findings were made at sentencing. | Lunder contends the journal entry lacks the explicit RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings. | Remanded for nunc pro tunc incorporation of findings into the entry. |
| Crim.R. 11 compliance for guilty plea | State asserts plea colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) regarding right against self-incrimination. | Lunder argues noncompliance affected knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea. | Crim.R. 11 compliance affirmed; plea valid. |
| Bifurcation/joinder and voluntariness of plea | State defense argued joinder did not prejudice; bifurcation denied. | Lunder claims absence of bifurcation deprived fair trial and coerced plea. | Court affirmed denial of bifurcation; no involuntary plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (requires trial court to incorporate RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings in sentencing entry)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (modifies strict wording requirement for Crim.R. 11 when rights explained intelligibly)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (strict compliance for privilege against self-incrimination in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c))
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (sentencing procedures and findings emphasized)
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (definition of ‘findings’ and notice in sentencing)