State v. Payne
2019 Ohio 2852
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Adam Payne pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery; two other counts were dismissed under a plea agreement.
- At sentencing, the Henry County Common Pleas Court ordered Payne’s sentence to run consecutively to a 23-month sentence Payne had already received in a Defiance County case.
- Payne appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The trial court’s judgment entry did not incorporate the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and the record lacked the necessary findings made on the record at sentencing.
- The Third District reversed, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing because the consecutive sentence was imposed contrary to law for lack of required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences | State: Consecutive sentence was proper | Payne: Trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences | Reversed: trial court did not make or journal the required findings; consecutive sentence contrary to law; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the sentencing entry must recite statutory findings | State: No exact formula required; findings can be in hearing or entry | Payne: Findings were not made or included in the entry | Court: Findings must be made at sentencing hearing; entry should reflect them; clerical omission can be fixed nunc pro tunc only if findings were made in open court |
| Whether a nunc pro tunc entry can cure the absence of findings | State: If findings were made but not journalized, nunc pro tunc can correct | Payne: No findings were made to correct | Court: Nunc pro tunc cannot supply findings that were not made at sentencing; here findings absent so sentence invalid |
| Whether the record supports the sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) | State: Sentence supported by record | Payne: Sentence not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Court: Issue rendered moot after vacating sentence for failure to make statutory findings; not addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (2014) (trial court must make and journal R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; failure renders consecutive sentence contrary to law unless findings were made in open court)
- Qualls v. Ohio, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 967 N.E.2d 718 (2012) (clerical omission in journal can be corrected by nunc pro tunc when the record shows the court made the findings at sentencing)
- Miller v. Ohio, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 940 N.E.2d 924 (2010) (nunc pro tunc cannot be used to supply findings that were not made at the sentencing hearing)
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199, 863 N.E.2d 1024 (2007) (court speaks through its journal; sentencing entry should reflect the court’s pronouncements)