State v. Staten
2021 Ohio 3382
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Marcus Staten was indicted on three counts of trafficking in cocaine (three fifth-degree felonies) and pleaded guilty to one count in exchange for dismissal of the other two.
- At the time of the new indictment, Staten was serving two separate three-year community-control terms from prior Sandusky County felony convictions; the state filed probation-violation notices in both prior cases based on the new conduct.
- A consolidated hearing on the community-control violations and sentencing was held; the trial court found violations, terminated community control unsuccessfully, and imposed prison terms of 24 months (17CR378), 12 months (17CR904), and 11 months (20CR034).
- The trial court ordered the three sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate 47-month prison term; separate July 6, 2020 judgment entries memorialized the sentences.
- Staten appealed, challenging (1) the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and (2) that the sentence length was excessive under R.C. 2929.11; the appellate court consolidated the appeals (including a granted delayed appeal for 20CR034).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences were made | Staten: trial court did not make the required findings of fact to impose consecutive sentences | State: trial court made the statutory findings at the sentencing hearing (no word-for-word recitation required) | Court: Findings were made at the hearing and support consecutive sentences; but two judgment entries omitted the findings and the case is remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct clerical omission |
| Whether the sentence length is excessive / contrary to R.C. 2929.11 | Staten: aggregate sentence is excessive and not the minimum necessary given his mental-health and addiction issues | State: appellate review is limited; court cannot reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations on appeal | Court: Claim not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) as interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court; assignment not well-taken |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial court not required to make separate "findings of fact" to impose consecutive sentences)
- Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and those findings must be discernible; clerical omissions may be corrected by nunc pro tunc)
- Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (trial court must make requisite consecutive-sentence findings both at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry)
- Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (clerical mistakes in sentencing entries may be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry)