State v. Squires, 2021 Ohio 2035

Defendant Jeffrey Squires pleaded guilty to three counts of third-degree sexual battery arising from repeated sexual assaults on an adult victim with Down syndrome who functioned at about a 10–11‑year‑old level. The victim described betrayal and ongoing abuse; her mother and the investigating detective testified regarding the victim’s disability, the pattern of assaults, and resulting harm.
Squires initially was sentenced to three consecutive 48‑month terms (aggregate 144 months / 12 years); this court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to expressly address the initial portion of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) (that at least two offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct).
On remand the trial court again imposed three consecutive 48‑month terms and made findings under R.C. 2929.14(C), reasoning the offenses occurred over about five months, targeted a mentally impaired victim, involved abuse of trust, and showed a common motivation and pattern.
The sentencing journal entry initially contained a clerical error (stated 44 months) and later an incomplete nunc pro tunc entry; the appellate court ordered correction to reflect the 144‑month aggregate sentence imposed in court.
Appellate standard: under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) the court may only modify if it clearly and convincingly finds the record does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record supports consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) (course‑of‑conduct finding).	The state: repeated sexual assaults on a mentally disabled victim show a course of conduct, common motivation, and significant harm warranting consecutive terms.	Squires: the record does not show a single "course of conduct" tying the offenses; findings under R.C. 2929.14(C) are unsupported.	Affirmed: the record supports the trial court’s findings that offenses were part of a course of conduct with similar motivation and serious/unusual harm; consecutive sentences were permissible.
Whether the sentencing entry must be corrected to reflect the sentence imposed in open court.	The state: nunc pro tunc correction may be used to make the entry match the sentence imposed.	Squires: not disputing correction but the court must accurately reflect the imposed sentence.	Remanded for limited purpose: trial court must issue a nunc pro tunc journal entry reflecting the aggregate 144‑month sentence imposed in open court.

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must include required consecutive‑sentence findings in the journal entry)
State v. Short, 952 N.E.2d 1121 (Ohio 2011) (a course of conduct may be established by factual links such as time, location, weapon, or similar motivation)
State v. Sapp, 822 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio 2004) (offenses may be tied by a common scheme or psychological thread to constitute a course of conduct)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))