2019 Ohio 2091
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Dennis S. Maple was indicted on multiple sex-related felonies; on the eve of trial he entered an Alford plea to five counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (Counts 13–17); remaining counts were dismissed under the plea agreement.
- The trial court sentenced Maple to 36 months on each of the five counts, ordered to run consecutively, for an aggregate 15-year prison term.
- Maple appealed, arguing consecutive sentences were improper because his limited prior criminal history did not demonstrate the necessity of consecutive terms to protect the public under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c).
- At the sentencing hearing the court expressly found (1) consecutive service was necessary to protect the public and to punish, (2) consecutive sentences were not disproportionate, and (3) the offenses occurred as part of a course of conduct and the harm was so great that a single term would be inadequate (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b)).
- The written sentencing entry, however, omitted the (b) finding and instead repeated the protection/punishment language, creating a clerical omission in the journalized entry.
- The court of appeals affirmed the sentence on the merits but remanded for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry reflecting the (b) finding actually made at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Maple) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were proper under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Trial court made the required statutory findings at sentencing; consecutive terms are supported by the record | Maple argued his sparse criminal history means subsection (c) doesn’t support consecutive terms and thus consecutive sentences are unnecessary | Affirmed: court made the required findings at the hearing (including subsection (b)); consecutive sentences supported; remand for nunc pro tunc to include the (b) finding in the written entry |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (describes plea where defendant maintains innocence but admits prosecution has sufficient evidence to convict)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2004) (discusses nature of Alford pleas in Ohio)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make statutory consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing hearing and incorporate them in the entry; clerical omissions may be corrected by nunc pro tunc)