State v. Roscoe
2015 Ohio 3876
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Anthony Roscoe was convicted after a bench trial of kidnapping (with sexual-motivation), three counts of rape, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of having a weapon while under disability; firearm specifications were also imposed at trial.
- On appeal this court vacated the aggravated robbery convictions, vacated the weapon-under-disability conviction, and vacated all firearm specifications for insufficient evidence; it entered judgment on lesser-included robbery and remanded for resentencing under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2).
- At the March 5, 2014 resentencing hearing the trial court announced merged counts and specific concurrent and consecutive terms, and orally stated a 12-month term on Count 7 (weapon-under-disability), though nobody raised that Count at the hearing.
- The trial court’s March 14, 2014 resentencing journal entry imposed sentences on the remaining counts (kidnapping/rape/robbery) but did not impose any sentence on Count 7; the entry expressly stated the court had previously found the defendant not guilty of Count 7 as charged.
- Roscoe appealed, arguing the trial court erred by resentencing him on Count 7 because this court had vacated that conviction on his prior appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by resentencing Roscoe on Count 7 (weapon while under disability) after this court previously vacated that conviction | State implicitly contends the resentencing entry governs; no party raised a contrary argument at resentencing | Roscoe argues the trial court rred by imposing a 12-month sentence on Count 7 because this court vacated that conviction on sufficiency grounds | The court held there was no resentencing on Count 7: the oral pronouncement is ineffective absent a journal entry; the journal shows Count 7 was not reinstated or sentenced, so Roscoe annot prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hampton, 983 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio 2012) (a court of record speaks only through its journal entry)
- Schenley v. Kauth, 113 N.E.2d 625 (Ohio 1953) (establishing that courts speak only through their journal)
- State v. Swiergosz, 965 N.E.2d 1070 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) (oral misstatements at sentencing are harmless where the journal entry controls)