2020 Ohio 4091
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellant Amanda Ter Doest (nka Amanda Diehl) was on community control for prior convictions and was later found to have stolen from two additional employers while on community control.
- Trial court revoked community control (May 21, 2018) and sentenced her to three prison terms—two 18‑month terms and one 12‑month term—to be served consecutively for an aggregate 48 months.
- On initial appeal this court, applying State v. Barnhouse, concluded the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without having made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the original community‑control sentencing.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding in State v. Howard that a trial court need only notify a defendant of the specific prison term (months per count) at the original community‑control sentencing and must make consecutive‑sentence findings at the revocation/sentencing hearing.
- On remand this court reviewed whether the trial court made all findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the revocation/sentencing hearing; the court found the trial judge determined consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public but failed to expressly find the sentences were not disproportionate to the conduct.
- Because the court omitted the non‑disproportionality finding, the sentence was held contrary to law, vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing; the argument about gambling compulsion was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required to impose consecutive sentences at the revocation/sentencing hearing | State: trial court made sufficient findings at sentencing to support consecutive terms | Ter Doest: trial court failed to make the mandatory statutory findings before imposing consecutive terms | Court: trial court found necessity/protection but did not find non‑disproportionality as required; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the trial court considered appellant's gambling compulsion as a mitigating factor under R.C. 2929.12 before imposing prison terms | State: sentencing considered the relevant facts and harms | Ter Doest: court failed to consider gambling compulsion as mitigating | Court: rendered moot by vacatur and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (consecutive sentences require R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and those findings must be reflected in the record)
- State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (trial court need not state reasons for findings word‑for‑word but record must show correct analysis and support)
- State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (imposition of consecutive sentences is discretionary)
- State v. Barnhouse, 808 N.E.2d 874 (Ohio 2004) (prior precedent requiring certain notices at original sentencing, which was later clarified by Howard)