State v. Romanko
2015 Ohio 4759
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Zoryana Romanko, a housekeeper, stole jewelry, antiques, and heirlooms from clients over 22 months and pawned them, netting about $70,000.
- She pleaded guilty in two separate Cuyahoga County cases: two counts of burglary (second-degree felonies) and one count of theft (fourth-degree felony) in one case, and one count of burglary (second-degree felony) in the other.
- Sentencing: in Case No. CR-14-583903 the court imposed concurrent two-year terms on the burglary counts and 18 months on the theft count to run consecutive to the burglary terms; in Case No. CR-14-585536 the court imposed two years on the burglary.
- The trial court ordered the two case sentences to be served consecutively, producing an aggregate term of 5½ years.
- Romanko appealed, arguing the trial court imposed consecutive sentences without making the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The State conceded error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the statutory findings required to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State maintained the sentence was proper (but ultimately conceded the error) | Romanko argued the court failed to make the required findings and so the consecutive sentences are contrary to law | Court held the record lacks the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; sentence vacated and case remanded for proper findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (explains that trial courts must make discernible findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences but need not recite the statute verbatim)