State v. Roberts
101 N.E.3d 1067
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Douglas Roberts (aka Franklin Jenkins) pleaded guilty in five separate Cuyahoga County matters; the trial court imposed multiple prison terms that largely ran consecutively for an aggregate of 18 years, 11 months.
- On initial appeal (Jenkins), the Eighth District reversed consecutive terms under State v. Bonnell for failure to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) proportionality finding and remanded for that limited purpose.
- On remand the trial court made the omitted R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and reimposed the original aggregate sentence.
- Roberts challenged (1) the proportionality finding supporting consecutive terms; (2) a prior-conviction specification alleged not to have been addressed at resentencing; (3) imposition of costs at resentencing; and (4) restitution amount (a clerical error).
- The court limited review to issues within the scope of the limited remand (consecutive-sentence findings) and held res judicata/limited-remand principles barred reconsideration of other sentencing aspects; it affirmed the consecutive terms but remanded to correct the clerical restitution error by nunc pro tunc entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) proportionality finding for consecutive sentences is supported by the record | Roberts: record does not support the court's finding that consecutive terms are not disproportionate; trial court misstated criminal history and failed to find offenses caused harm "so great or unusual" | State: trial court made the statutory findings (including that offenses occurred while on community control) and the record — extensive burglary/reoffending history and victim trauma — supports proportionality | Affirmed: appellate court cannot clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the proportionality finding; consecutive sentences upheld |
| 2. Whether challenges to other sentencing items (prior-conviction spec., costs, restitution) were reviewable on this limited remand | Roberts: these sentencing errors arose at resentencing and should be corrected | State: limited remand confined the trial court and appellate review to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; other claims were outside scope | Held: those challenges are outside the limited remand and barred by res judicata / not reviewable here |
| 3. Whether the restitution amount in the final entry should be corrected | Roberts and State: final entry lists $10,280.60 but parties agree original hearing established $1,028.60; asserted clerical error | State: concedes clerical error; trial court retains jurisdiction under Crim.R. 36 to correct clerical mistakes by nunc pro tunc | Remanded for limited purpose: issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting restitution to reflect the amount established at original sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record to impose consecutive sentences)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate courts must modify or vacate sentences if they find by clear and convincing evidence the record does not support mandated findings)
- State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152 (2017) (discussing appellate standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G))
- State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 (2008) (aggregate length of incarceration relates to the number of offenses committed)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (trial court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical mistakes in judgments by nunc pro tunc entry)