2014 Ohio 5547
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Sanchez K. Smith was indicted and, on August 26, 2010, pleaded guilty to multiple counts including aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated theft, and having weapons while under disability, with attendant firearm and forfeiture specifications.
- At sentencing on September 21, 2010, the trial court imposed: nine years on each of four counts (run concurrently), plus a consecutive three-year firearm specification; four years on the weapons-under-disability count; and 11 months on aggravated theft.
- The court ordered the sentences for Counts 1–4, Count 13, and Count 15 to run consecutively to each other, producing an aggregate term of 16 years, 11 months, and ordered forfeiture of the weapon.
- Smith appealed (filed March 11, 2014), arguing the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C).
- The State conceded the trial court made no such findings at the sentencing hearing but argued the statutory findings were not required because of the sentencing date.
- The court evaluated whether the revived consecutive-sentence findings (added by H.B. 86 on Sept. 30, 2011) applied to a defendant sentenced in 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making R.C. 2929.14(C) findings | State: consecutive sentences were proper because at the time of Smith's 2010 sentencing the court had discretion to impose consecutive terms without on-the-record findings | Smith: trial court must have made the R.C. 2929.14(C) findings before imposing consecutive sentences | Court held no error: sentencing predated H.B. 86’s revival of R.C. 2929.14(C) requirements, so findings were not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (held trial courts retained discretion to impose consecutive sentences without specific statutory findings after certain provisions of the sentencing statutes were invalidated)
- State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (Ohio 2008) (recognized trial courts’ continued discretion and inherent authority to order consecutive or concurrent sentences within statutory ranges)