State v. Moore
2014 Ohio 5182
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Joshua M. Moore pled guilty to complicity to commit aggravated robbery and obstructing justice; other counts were dismissed with forfeiture of two firearms.
- Moore and his cousin plotted to rob Newbury Pharmacy; they recruited two Detroit gunmen who used firearms provided by Moore.
- The robbery netted thousands of controlled substances; the victims testified to the trauma and fear caused by the crime.
- Moore lied to detectives about the gunmen’s identities; the gunmen were later arrested and Moore’s firearms and narcotics were found at his home.
- The trial court sentenced Moore to nine years for the robbery conviction plus a three-year firearm specification, and 12 months for obstructing justice, all consecutive for a total of 13 years; a nunc pro tunc entry later corrected the omission of mandatory HB 86 findings.
- HB 86 requires findings for consecutive sentences; the court made these on the record but initially omitted them from the judgment entry, which was later corrected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences had proper HB 86 findings | Moore | Moore | Findings were made; clerical omission corrected; not contrary to law. |
| Whether the sentence is disproportionate | Moore argues disproportionality | State maintains proper application of guidelines | Sentence within statutory range; not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stalnaker, 2012-Ohio-3028 (11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-151) (HB 86 requires factual findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Frasca, 2012-Ohio-3746 (11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2011-T-0108) (consecutive-sentence findings not require stated reasons in sentencing entry)
- State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682) (clear and convincing standard applies to appellate review of such findings)
- State v. Cornelison, 2014-Ohio-2884 (11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-064) (post-H.B. 86 review; findings must be discernible in the record; clerical omissions remediable by nunc pro tunc entry)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 109 (2014-Ohio-3177) (court must incorporate sentencing findings into judgment entry; clerical error may be corrected via nunc pro tunc entry)