State v. Nave
2019 Ohio 348
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Christopher Nave pleaded guilty to multiple burglary and theft-related felonies in two Cuyahoga County cases and received an aggregate 10-year prison term (two consecutive 5-year terms).
- Nave appealed only the sentencing, not the guilty pleas. He challenged the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences and the entries reflecting those findings.
- At sentencing the court stated the statutory consecutive-sentence findings (including that offenses were committed while awaiting trial/community control and that the harm was great and unusual) and imposed consecutive terms.
- Nave argued the court used rote or “talismanic” language without adequate reasons, failed to consider his minimal criminal history and remorse, and failed to incorporate required findings into both final journal entries.
- The trial court’s oral statements and the final entry in one case expressly incorporated the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; the other case’s entry noted the sentence was consecutive "with" the other case for reference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences | State: court satisfied Bonnell/Marcum standards; findings discernible from record | Nave: court used talismanic words and failed to give reasons supporting findings | Court: Affirmed. Rote recitation not required; record shows court engaged in correct analysis and findings supported by evidence |
| Consideration of Nave's limited criminal history | State: court may rely on alternate statutory findings; criminal history not required if other factors present | Nave: lack of prior record weighed against consecutive sentences | Court: Affirmed. Court considered but did not rely on minimal history; statute permits consecutive sentences based on alternate findings |
| Consideration of remorse and sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12 | State: trial court expressly considered statutory factors at hearing and in entry | Nave: court failed to consider his remorse when imposing mid-range sentence | Court: Affirmed. Court explicitly indicated it considered all sentencing factors, satisfying requirement |
| Incorporation of consecutive-sentence findings into journal entries | State: required findings were included in the final entry imposing the consecutive aggregate term | Nave: final entries failed to incorporate the statutory findings in both cases | Court: Affirmed. The sentencing entry in CR-15-600628-C incorporated required findings; the companion case simply noted the sentence was consecutive and did not require duplication |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court need not recite statutory language verbatim; findings must be discernible from record)
- State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio 2017) (trial court satisfies consideration requirement by expressly indicating in the record that it considered statutory sentencing factors)