State v. Orms, 2014 Ohio 2732

State of Ohio appeals the trial court’s judicial release order for Nathan S. Orms.
Orms pleaded guilty to engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (second-degree felony) and nine counts of money laundering (third-degree).
The court sentenced Orms to four years on the pattern-of-corrupt-activity count, plus concurrent/adjacent terms on money laundering counts for a total stated term of four-and-a-half years.
Orms filed a motion for judicial release under R.C. 2929.20 on November 20, 2012; the court granted relief after a hearing on May 31, 2013 (entry July 17, 2013).
The State timely appealed, challenging the court’s omissions of required findings and factor listing under R.C. 2929.20(J).
The court remanded, vacating the grant of judicial release and directing the trial court to make the statutorily required findings for the second-degree offenses and the related counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court failed to make required findings under R.C. 2929.20(J).	State contends the court did not specify findings on adequacy of punishment or seriousness of the offense.	Orms argues the court’s discretion supported release, with no explicit argument on the specific findings.	Yes; the court failed to make and on-record all required findings and factor listings.
Whether the required findings and factor listing applied to all counts treated as a single stated prison term.	State asserts all money-laundering counts share the same stated term and thus require proper findings.	Orms maintains individual consideration was appropriate for the offense group.	Yes; the failure to apply proper findings to the multi-count term affected the entire release.
Whether the case should be remanded to allow proper findings rather than simply vacating release.	State seeks remand to cure deficiencies.	Orms defends the initial grant as within trial court discretion.	Remand for explicit findings and factor listing is required.
Whether other challenges to the court’s reasoning are moot after remand.	State argues issues about economic harm, prosecutorial argument, and pressure are still pertinent.	Orms contends those issues become moot after remand.	Yes; those issues are moot in light of remand to comply with statutory requirements.

State v. Williams, 2010-Ohio-4519 (10th Dist. 2010) (review standard for judicial release in second-degree felonies)
State v. Kelley, 2008-Ohio-3828 (10th Dist. 2008) (requires specific findings under R.C. 2929.20(J) for release)
State v. Day, 2010-Ohio-125 (10th Dist. 2010) (remand when findings are absent)
State v. Hunt, 2005-Ohio-3144 (10th Dist. 2005) (guides necessity of on-record findings)
State v. Triplett, 2008-Ohio-397 (10th Dist. 2008) (illustrates multiple-count terms and need for uniform findings)