State v. Percy, 2024 Ohio 664

Surfin Percy was convicted after pleading guilty to two counts of rape, one count of gross sexual imposition, and one count of child endangering for sexually abusing his minor daughter.
At the original sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences on the two rape convictions, totaling 22 years in prison.
On direct appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals found that the trial court failed to make one of the specific statutory findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences.
The case was remanded for a limited resentencing hearing to address the missing statutory requirement.
At resentencing, the trial court made all required statutory findings and reimposed consecutive sentences.
Percy appealed again, challenging whether the record supported those findings by the trial court.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences	Trial court did not support the statutory finding that offenses were committed as part of a course of conduct	Record from the original hearing supports the necessary findings for consecutive sentences	Affirmed – Trial court made required findings and the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences

State v. Percy, 2021-Ohio-1876 (Ohio Ct. App.) (prior appellate opinion holding trial court failed to make required statutory findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. McKinney, 2019-Ohio-1118 (Ohio Ct. App.) (explains requirements for R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. Matthews, 2015-Ohio-4072 (Ohio Ct. App.) (remedy for error in imposing consecutive sentences is a limited remand)
State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 (Ohio) (trial courts are not required to recite statutory language verbatim for consecutive sentencing findings)