2019 Ohio 2650
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Leslie Rombkowski, former law-firm office manager, admitted stealing large sums from her employer (over $750,000) and from a disabled client (over $150,000).
- Indicted on multiple counts including aggravated theft, forgery, theft from a person in a protected class, and tampering with records; pled guilty to aggravated theft (Count 1) and attempted theft from a person in a protected class (Count 3, lesser included).
- At sentencing the trial court imposed five years on each count, ordered to run consecutively, producing a ten-year aggregate prison term.
- Rombkowski appealed, arguing consecutive sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to make required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The trial court made the required statutory findings at the sentencing hearing (necessity to protect/punish; not disproportionate; applicability of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) — course(s) of conduct and great/unusual harm), but the subsequent written judgment entry omitted the (b) finding.
- The Court of Appeals held the oral findings supported consecutive sentences, but reversed and remanded for the trial court to correct the sentencing entry via a nunc pro tunc entry to include the omitted (b) finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were imposed contrary to law under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Trial court: Consecutive sentences were proper because court found necessity to protect/punish, not disproportionate, and (b) applied (course(s) of conduct; great/unusual harm). | Rombkowski: Trial court failed to properly make/statutorily record R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; argued insufficiency because not maximum sentences, comparative lesser sentences in other cases, and mitigating factors (acceptance, no prior record, restitution). | Court: Oral findings satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); record supports consecutive sentences, so not contrary to law. Because the written entry omitted the (b) finding, reversed and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make required R.C. 2929.14(C) findings at sentencing hearing and in entry; clerical omission may be corrected by nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Beasley, 158 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (consecutive-sentence statute requires three specific findings; findings must appear in both oral pronouncement and entry)