2021 Ohio 125
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Latrale Nelson Travis pleaded guilty to an amended count of burglary and two counts of felonious assault after two separate violent incidents less than 30 minutes apart in June 2018.
- Travis was on postrelease control for a prior conviction when he committed these offenses and has a lengthy criminal history.
- The trial court sentenced Travis to an aggregate 10-year prison term with three years of postrelease control and ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
- On appeal Travis challenged only the imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- The trial court expressly found at the sentencing hearing and in its journal entry that (a) Travis was on postrelease control when he committed the offenses, (b) a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness given two separate victims in a short time span, and (c) his criminal history required consecutive terms to protect the public.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the record supported those findings and whether the court engaged in the required analysis and incorporated findings into the journal entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were imposed without the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: Trial court made the required findings on the record, and incorporated them into the journal entry; consecutive terms were warranted by the facts and defendant’s history | Travis: Trial court failed to make the requisite findings to justify consecutive sentences | Affirmed. The court found the trial court engaged in the correct analysis, made all required findings on the record and in the journal entry, and the record supports consecutive sentences. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state it considered statutory criteria and incorporate findings in journal entry)
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (Ohio 1999) (court must note its analysis and specify which statutory bases support consecutive terms)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard)