State v. Townsend, 2022 Ohio 692

Townsend was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual offenses against three separate victims (two 17-year-olds and one 13-year-old); DNA linked him to at least two attacks.
Original sentencing imposed multiple consecutive terms totaling 56 years to life; Townsend appealed and this court in a prior opinion remanded for resentencing on several counts because of errors with sexually violent predator specifications.
At the April 2021 resentencing hearing the trial court expressly found consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, were not disproportionate, and relied on Townsend’s pattern of multiple rapes and prior violent criminal history.
The court reimposed consecutive terms on the resentenced counts (totaling 35 years) to run consecutively to an existing 21-years-to-life term, producing an aggregate 56 years to life sentence.
The resentencing transcript contained the required statutory findings, but the journal entry failed to incorporate those findings and mistakenly referenced R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) instead of the consecutive-sentence provision.
The appellate court affirmed the substance of the consecutive sentences (finding the record supports the findings) but remanded for the limited purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry that incorporates the trial court’s findings into the journal entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record and requisite statutory findings	Trial court made the required findings at resentencing (necessity, proportionality, and applicable statutory basis); record supports those findings	Trial court failed to make proportionality findings and consecutive terms were unnecessary given an existing life-tail sentence; sentence excessive	Affirmed: Transcript shows the court engaged in correct analysis and record supports consecutive sentences; appellate reversal not warranted
Whether the sentencing journal entry is sufficient	The defective reference was a clerical error that can be corrected nunc pro tunc	Journal entry failed to incorporate the on-the-record findings as required by Bonnell	Remanded: Sentence affirmed but court must issue a nunc pro tunc entry reflecting the on-the-record findings supporting consecutive terms

State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (2014) (trial court must make and incorporate findings for consecutive sentences; exact statutory phrasing not required)
State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (1999) (court must note that it engaged in the required sentencing analysis)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (2016) (appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2): modify/vacate if record clearly and convincingly does not support findings)
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (2020) (appellate standard and application of Marcum for consecutive-sentence review)
State v. Roberts, 101 N.E.3d 1067 (2017) (8th Dist.) (appellate deference to trial court unless clear and convincing evidence record lacks support)
State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (2013) (8th Dist.) (same principle on review of consecutive sentences)