State v. Taylor, 2016 Ohio 7894

Defendant Ronelle Taylor was indicted in two Cuyahoga County cases for multiple drug offenses (2013 and 2014); charges included trafficking, possession, possessing criminal tools, and endangering children.
Taylor pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement: in CR-13-580285 guilty to two trafficking counts and possessing criminal tools; in CR-14-591206 guilty to amended trafficking (mandatory prison) and one count of endangering children; remaining counts dismissed.
Sentences: in CR-13-580285, one year on each of three counts (concurrent); in CR-14-591206, seven years on trafficking and time served on the misdemeanor; the trial court ordered the two case sentences to run consecutively, for a total of eight years.
At sentencing the court reviewed Taylor’s extensive, mostly drug-related criminal history and noted prior prison terms had not deterred him; the court characterized Taylor as a “monster” during the colloquy.
Taylor filed a delayed appeal raising two assignments of error: (1) the trial court lacked sufficient justification for consecutive sentences, and (2) the trial judge’s characterization of him as a “monster” showed bias and deprived him of a fair sentence.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentence but remanded for a nunc pro tunc journal entry to incorporate the statutory consecutive-sentence findings made at the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	State: Trial court made required findings that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and to punish, were not disproportionate, and at least one statutory factor applied (postrelease control, course of conduct, criminal history).	Taylor: Record does not support the court’s finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of conduct and danger posed.	Affirmed. Court found the trial judge made the required findings on the record and the record supports them; remanded only to enter a nunc pro tunc journal entry reflecting those findings.
Whether the judge’s calling Taylor a “monster” showed bias and invalidated the sentence	State: Judge’s characterization came after review of facts, PSI, and arguments; no evidence of bias affecting sentencing.	Taylor: Labeling him a “monster” shows judicial partiality and deprived him of a fair, impartial sentence.	Affirmed. Court held the remark, viewed in context, did not demonstrate bias or render the sentence unfair, though judges should avoid such personal characterizations.

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (2014) (trial court must make and record R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; reasons not required but findings must be discernible)
State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (1999) (trial court must engage in analysis and consider statutory criteria when imposing sentence)
State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956) (definition of judicial bias or prejudice as hostile feeling or fixed anticipatory judgment)