State v. Olp
2016 Ohio 3508
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- James O. Olp pled guilty to felony OVI offenses in two separate Ashtabula County cases arising from incidents on July 26 and Aug. 17, 2013; one plea included a specification for multiple prior OVIs.
- Sentencing occurred June 12, 2015 in both cases before different judges: Case No. 2014 CR 069 (one OVI) yielded 120 mandatory days plus three years; Case No. 2014 CR 068 (OVI with specification) yielded a six-year term (two years + four years) and a lifetime license suspension.
- The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively and stated at the hearing that Olp’s persistent OVI history made the court fear he would “kill some innocent person” if released.
- The written judgment entry for Case No. 2014 CR 068 did not recite the exact statutory language of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) regarding an offender’s history demonstrating the necessity of consecutive sentences to protect the public.
- Olp appealed, arguing the court failed to make the specific findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) as clarified by HB 86 and Bonnell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to impose consecutive sentences | State: The record and hearing show the court considered public protection, punishment, and proportionality and need not use exact statutory phrasing | Olp: The court failed to make the specific (C)(4)(c) finding that his history of criminal conduct demonstrates consecutive terms are necessary to protect the public | Court: Findings were made at the hearing (court’s statements showed consideration of defendant’s history and danger); upholds sentence but remands for a nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate those findings into the written judgment entry |
Key Cases Cited
- 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; appellate review looks for whether record shows the court engaged in required analysis and whether evidence supports findings)