State v. Temaj-Felix
2015 Ohio 3966
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In April 2011 Temaj‑Felix ran a red light, struck two pedestrians in a crosswalk, killed a 3‑year‑old, and injured the child’s mother. He pleaded guilty in November 2011 to aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and two counts of failure to stop after an accident.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate 18‑year term. On direct appeal this court held the two failure‑to‑stop convictions were allied offenses and vacated the sentence on one count, remanding for resentencing after the State’s election.
- At the January 10, 2014 resentencing hearing the court merged Count 6 into Count 5, announced a one‑year reduction in overall sentence, and later journalized a 24‑month sentence on Count 5 (with Count 6 merged).
- Temaj‑Felix moved for relief arguing the court lacked findings for consecutive sentences and sought to withdraw pleas; the trial court denied relief. Several assignments of error were presented on appeal from the resentencing entry.
- The majority affirmed the resentencing judgment except it sustained the claim that the court failed to include its consecutive‑sentence findings in the journal entry and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry; several other assignments were overruled. The opinion includes a dissent that would have vacated the resentencing for failure to verbally pronounce the particular sentence at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Temaj‑Felix's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not including the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive‑sentence findings in the written entry | Transcript of the hearing shows the court made required findings; a nunc pro tunc entry can correct omission | The written entry lacks the required statutory findings, so sentence is improper | Sustained — court made findings at hearing but must incorporate them in the journal entry nunc pro tunc (majority) |
| Whether the court failed to verbally impose sentence at the resentencing hearing | The court’s announcement that Count 6 was merged into Count 5 and that overall sentence was reduced by one year sufficiently communicated the sentence | The court did not state a particular sentence for Count 5 at the hearing and thus failed to pronounce sentence as required | Overruled (majority): pronouncement was sufficient under these limited facts; Dissent would have sustained |
| Whether consecutive sentences were imposed without required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | Transcript contains the necessary findings (protect public, punish, not disproportionate, harm so great/unusual) | Trial court lacked appropriate findings to support consecutive terms | Overruled — transcript shows requisite findings supporting consecutive sentences |
| Whether allied‑offenses and record‑review challenges remain viable | State: allied‑offenses claim already litigated and barred by res judicata; remand limited to sentencing on vacated counts | Temaj‑Felix: all convictions should merge; asked for de novo review of all counts | Overruled — allied‑offense argument barred by res judicata; remand limited to sentencing of vacated counts |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (court must include consecutive‑sentence findings in the journal entry; omission can be corrected nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (when remanding for allied‑offense sentencing error, trial court must hold a new sentencing hearing for the offenses that remain after the State’s election)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars raising issues already finally litigated on direct appeal)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (rejection of the sentencing‑package doctrine; courts must impose and pronounce individual sentences per offense)
- State v. Ketterer, 140 Ohio St.3d 400 (reaffirmation of res judicata principles for criminal appeals)