State v. Nance
2017 Ohio 744
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Kevin Nance pleaded guilty in one case to fourth-degree receiving stolen property and later pled guilty in another case to third-degree drug trafficking (with a one-year firearm specification), third-degree having weapons while under disability, and fifth-degree possession of criminal tools.
- Sentences: trial court imposed an aggregate 3-year term for the latter case (including the one-year firearm spec) and sentenced Nance to 18 months for the receiving-stolen-property probation violation.
- The court ordered the 18-month probation-violation sentence to run consecutively to the 3-year aggregate, producing a total term of 4.5 years. Other community-control matters were terminated without further sanction.
- Nance appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences and that the court failed to make findings to impose above-minimum terms.
- The trial court expressly stated on the record that consecutive sentences were "necessary to protect the public from future crime, or to punish the offender," that they were not disproportionate, and identified statutory bases (committed offenses while on probation and the defendant’s criminal history).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences | State: trial court made the necessary findings on the record and in the journal entry | Nance: court failed to make all three statutory findings (argues court only made two or recited language without specifying) | Affirmed — court made the necessary findings on the record and incorporated them into the sentencing entry |
| Whether the trial court needed to give reasons beyond statutory language for consecutive sentences | State: no specific reasons required so long as findings are discernible in record/journal | Nance: court’s recital was insufficient; should specify which prong (protect public vs. punish) | Affirmed — no requirement to articulate extensive reasons; recitation and supporting record suffice per Bonnell |
| Whether trial court erred by imposing above-minimum/maximum sentences without specific findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | State: trial court considered statutory factors and had discretion within statutory ranges | Nance: court failed to make requisite findings to impose more than minimum | Affirmed — R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes; court properly considered factors and sentences were within statutory range |
| Whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support sentencing findings under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) | State: record supports findings (probation violation, criminal history, escalation in felony levels) | Nance: record insufficient to support consecutive and above-minimum findings | Affirmed — appellate court cannot clearly and convincingly find record lacks support; sentencing not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make statutory findings for consecutive terms but need not give detailed reasons; findings may be incorporated in journal entry)
- Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for felony sentences)
- Edmonson v. Ohio, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (trial court must note it engaged in sentencing analysis)
- Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts have discretion within statutory ranges post-Foster/Foster’s effect on findings)
- Wilson v. State, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 do not require specific on-the-record findings)