State v. Ruff, 2017 Ohio 1430

Kenneth Ruff was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses and aggravated burglaries against five victims and sentenced to an aggregate 40-year prison term.
On direct appeal this court vacated multiple punishments for the aggravated-burglary and rape counts under the allied-offenses statute and remanded for resentencing; the Ohio Supreme Court then directed this court to reassess whether those offenses were of similar import.
This court concluded the aggravated burglary and rape counts against each victim were allied, vacated the duplicate sentences, and remanded to the trial court for the State to elect which allied offense to pursue for each victim.
At the resentencing the State elected rape counts; the trial court merged the burglary counts into the rape counts, imposed consecutive terms across counts and cases, and again reached an aggregate 40-year sentence.
Ruff appealed, arguing the trial court failed to (1) make required findings for consecutive sentences, (2) consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, (3) give drug-testing notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f), and (4) that the judgment entries incorrectly stated convictions were by bench trial.
The court affirmed the sentences, found the consecutive-sentence findings and incorporation compliant with Bonnell, deemed the statutory drug-notification omission harmless, and remanded only to correct the clerical error in the entries (nunc pro tunc to show jury conviction).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were authorized and properly imposed	Trial court made and incorporated the required Bonnell findings; consecutive terms are necessary	Ruff argued the court failed to make the statutory consecutive-sentencing findings	Held: Court complied with Bonnell; findings were stated at hearing and in entries — consecutive sentences upheld
Whether trial court considered purposes/principles of sentencing (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)	Presume the court considered those factors absent affirmative showing to the contrary	Ruff argued the court failed to consider those statutes when imposing maximum terms	Held: No affirmative demonstration by Ruff; court properly presumed to have considered 2929.11/2929.12
Whether failure to give R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) drug-testing/usage notifications requires relief	Omission is harmless because the statute confers no substantive right	Ruff argued lack of required warnings on ingestion/injection and random testing	Held: Error harmless; notifications not prejudicial and do not warrant relief
Whether judgment entries must be corrected to reflect jury convictions	State concedes clerical error; entries can be corrected nunc pro tunc	Ruff requested correction from “bench trial” to “jury trial”	Held: Clerical error acknowledged; remanded for nunc pro tunc correction to reflect jury verdicts

State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (Ohio Supreme Court remand regarding allied-offenses analysis)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319, 922 N.E.2d 182 (Ohio 2010) (when appellate reversal for allied-offense sentencing error occurs, remand for the State to elect which allied offense to pursue)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (scope of resentencing after allied-offense remand; res judicata limitations)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state and incorporate consecutive-sentence findings; no verbatim statutory language required)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for reviewing felony sentences)