State v. Stewart
2018 Ohio 1678
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Kenyel Stewart, incarcerated at Trumbull Correctional Institution, was indicted for possession of 0.143 grams of heroin found concealed in his mouth on Dec. 20, 2015.
- At trial Stewart admitted drug use that day, said he paid $30 for the heroin, and declined to identify the source for safety reasons; a jury convicted him.
- The trial court ordered a PSI; the state sought a 12-month consecutive sentence to the sentence Stewart already was serving in a Cuyahoga County case, citing his long criminal history.
- At sentencing the court emphasized Stewart committed a new felony while incarcerated and found consecutive imprisonment necessary to punish and protect the public, mentioning Stewart’s criminal record as a basis.
- The journalized sentencing entry omitted some of the oral findings (specifically the criminal-history protection finding), although the court made the required consecutive-sentence findings at the hearing.
- Stewart appealed solely arguing the record did not clearly and convincingly support imposition of consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was supported by the record and lawful | State: consecutive 12-month term is warranted given Stewart’s lengthy criminal history and that he committed a felony while incarcerated | Stewart: court’s findings are not sufficiently supported by facts in the record to justify consecutive sentences | Court affirmed: findings were made at the hearing and discernible from record; remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate those findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the statutory findings for consecutive sentences on the record but need not recite statutory language verbatim; reasons must be discernible)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences limited by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); reversal only if record clearly and convincingly does not support required findings or sentence is contrary to law)