State v. Parsons, 2013 Ohio 1281

Background

Appellant pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition and aggravated vehicular assault after initially facing rape and felonious assault charges.
Trial court sentenced Appellant to 12 months for gross sexual imposition and five years for aggravated vehicular assault, to be served consecutively (total six years).
Court classified Appellant as a Tier I sex offender and imposed a license suspension of 15 years, later corrected to 10 years by nunc pro tunc entry.
Court found serious harm to the victim, lack of remorse, and a pattern of prior offenses supporting maximum consecutive terms.
Appeal challenges: (a) maximum sentence for aggravated vehicular assault, (b) consecutive sentences, (c) 15-year license suspension and the nunc pro tunc correction after notice of appeal.
Plea and sentencing record show the judge considered sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the prosecutor characterized the offense as the worst assault she had seen.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the maximum five-year term for aggravated vehicular assault was error	Parsons argues the court abused its discretion	Parsons asserts factors did not justify maximum term	No abuse of discretion; maximum term supported by factors
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed under the new statute	Court's consecutive findings were proper under new law	Opposes necessity and proportionality findings	Consecutive sentences valid under amended R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) with required findings
Whether the 15-year license suspension was lawful and properly corrected	Suspension excessive; clerical error	Nunc pro tunc correction after appeal improper	15-year suspension reversed; remanded to issue correct nunc pro tunc entry imposing a 10-year suspension

Key Cases Cited

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (court may sentence within range without mandatory fact-finding; consecutive sentencing discretion preserved)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step review of felony sentences; compliance with sentencing statutes)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (necessity of considering sentencing factors; no requirement to make findings for maximum term)
State v. James, 7th Dist. No. 07CO47, 2009-Ohio-4392 (7th Dist.) (silent record creates presumption of consideration of sentencing criteria)
State v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Apprendi/Blakely constraints on judicial fact-finding; not applicable to consecutive sentencing authority under Ice)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (post-Ice; Foster framework refined; no revival of Foster’s ban on consecutive sentencing findings)
State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (2008-Ohio-1983) (recognizes trial court discretion to order consecutive sentences under Bates framework)
State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (2003-Ohio-4165) (requirement to state findings to support consecutive sentences (pre-Foster))
State v. Wilson, 8th Dist. No. 97657, 2012-Ohio-4153 (2012-Ohio-4153) (new statute requiring findings to support consecutive sentences; record must reflect findings)
State v. Just, 9th Dist. No. 12CA0002, 2012-Ohio-4094 (2012-Ohio-4094) (analysis of findings under amended consecutive sentencing statute)
State v. Stalnaker, 11th Dist. No.2011-L-151, 2012-Ohio-3028 (2012-Ohio-3028) (recent case law on consecutive sentencing findings)