State v. Romanko
2017 Ohio 739
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Zoryana Romanko, a housekeeper, stole jewelry and heirlooms from multiple employers over a 22‑month period, conducting 139 pawn transactions totaling over $69,000. She pled guilty to multiple burglaries and one count of grand theft and agreed to $13,150 restitution.
- Original aggregate sentence: 5½ years (consecutive terms across two case numbers), plus mandatory postrelease control and restitution.
- This Court previously vacated the consecutive sentences and remanded for the trial court to consider R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and make the required findings (State v. Romanko, "Romanko I").
- At resentencing the trial court announced it would reimpose the original consecutive sentences, then articulated the statutory findings on the record and incorporated them in the journal entry.
- Romanko appealed again; appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders. Romanko filed a pro se brief raising five assignments of error (timing and support for consecutive findings; failure to apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; ineffective assistance; restitution ability‑to‑pay; allied‑offenses merger).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Romanko's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by stating findings after announcing consecutive sentences | Trial court satisfied Bonnell: it engaged in the analysis, stated findings on the record and incorporated them in the journal entry | Court had to make statutory findings before announcing consecutive sentences | No error — timing not required; findings on the record and in entry suffice |
| Whether record supports R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (necessity, proportionality, course of conduct/harm/history) | Record (nine victims; repeated course of conduct; severe financial and emotional harm; breach of trust) supports findings under subsection (b) and (c) | Romanko: first‑time, nonviolent 42‑year‑old; no physical harm; findings unsupported | Affirmed — record clearly and convincingly supports the findings |
| Whether restitution or allied‑offense and many ineffective‑assistance claims can be reviewed on resentencing appeal | Appellate scope limited to issues arising from resentencing; restitution and many claims were either part of plea or previously appealable and thus barred by res judicata or to be raised by other procedures | Romanko argued trial court failed to consider ability to pay and failed to merge theft with burglary; she also alleged ineffective assistance | Restitution: barred by res judicata and plea waiver/consent; Allied‑offense and trial counsel claims: outside scope of resentencing appeal and barred by res judicata; ineffective appellate counsel claim must be pursued via App.R. 26(B) |
| Whether Anders procedures were satisfied and any arguable issues exist on appeal | Counsel followed Anders, identified arguable points and explained lack of merit; court independently reviewed the record | Romanko proceeded pro se raising multiple claims | Court finds no non‑frivolous issues, grants Anders withdrawal and affirms judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when counsel deems appeal frivolous)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and journalize R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; no talismanic language required)
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (Ohio 1999) (requirement that court note it engaged in analysis when imposing sentence)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (scope of issues on appeal from resentencing is limited to those arising from the new sentencing)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio 2011) (res judicata bars issues that could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata doctrine precluding relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)