State v. Spence
2014 Ohio 4691
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Spence pled guilty to Count 3 (firearm specification amended) and Count 4 (improper discharge into a habitation) as part of a plea deal; remaining counts were dismissed.
- Trial court sentenced Spence to a one-year firearm specification term consecutive with four years on Count 3 and a four-year consecutive term on Count 4; journal entry incorrectly referenced Count 2 and total five years.
- Spence challenged only the sentencing; argued the court failed to make required consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The trial court made express findings in court that supported consecutive sentences, stating the harm and danger and non-concurrent necessity.
- Ohio Supreme Court Bonnell decision requires that such findings be incorporated into the sentencing entry; failure to do so is clerical and remediable nunc pro tunc.
- Case is remanded to correct the journal entry to reflect consecutive-sentence findings and that Spence was sentenced on Count 3, not Count 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly imposed consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). | Spence argues findings were not properly made or reflected. | State contends adequate in-court findings were made; Bonnell governs correction via nunc pro tunc. | Consecutive-sentence findings were adequate; however, Bonnell requires journal-entry nunc pro tunc correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (requires incorporation of consecutive-sentencing findings into sentencing entry; clerical error may be corrected nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100151, 2014-Ohio-3584 (2014-Ohio-3584) (sufficient in-court findings support consecutive sentences)
- State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (2013-Ohio-1891) (standard of review for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391, 2001-Ohio-1341 (2001-Ohio-1341) (when consecutive terms are imposed need proper statutory findings)
- State v. Nia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99387, 2014-Ohio-2527 (2014-Ohio-2527) (pre-Bonnell interpretation of statutory requirements)