State v. Matthews
2014 Ohio 3137
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2011 Matthews drove a car in reverse at high speed in a McDonald’s parking lot, striking five people; she was charged with multiple counts and convicted of five counts of felonious assault.
- The trial court originally imposed an aggregate 7-year prison term, ordering Counts 2 and 4 to run consecutively.
- This court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because the trial court had not made the statutorily required findings to support consecutive sentences (State v. Matthews, 8th Dist.).
- At the 2013 resentencing the trial court again imposed a 7-year aggregate term and ordered Counts 2 and 4 to run consecutively.
- Matthews appealed, arguing (1) this court exceeded its authority in Matthews I by directing the trial court what findings to make, and (2) the trial court still failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required for consecutive sentences.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, sustained the consecutive-sentence challenge, and remanded for the trial court to make the missing statutory finding if warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court improperly ordered the trial court to make findings on remand (Matthews I) | State: remand for compliance with sentencing statutes was proper | Matthews: appellate court substituted its judgment and should have modified sentence under R.C. 2953.08 instead | Not reached on merits — challenge to prior appellate decision is untimely; assignment overruled because review of Matthews I was unavailable on this appeal |
| Whether the trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to impose consecutive sentences | State: trial court made findings regarding disproportionality and course-of-conduct harm | Matthews: trial court failed to expressly find consecutive service was necessary to protect the public or to punish her | Court held the sentencing did not comply with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) because the trial court failed to make the distinct finding that consecutive service was necessary; reversed in part and remanded for proper findings |
Key Cases Cited
- (No official reporter-cited authorities in the opinion that meet the required format.)