State v. Vaughn
2016 Ohio 3320
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Vaughn (17 at the time, bound over to common pleas) pleaded guilty as part of a package deal to multiple counts arising from two armed robberies and related crimes, including aggravated robbery (with firearm specs), kidnapping, intimidation, vandalism, weapons offenses, and receiving stolen property.
- Security-camera footage and audio (played at sentencing) showed Vaughn and a codefendant with guns, threats to victims, a gunshot, and efforts to disable cameras; one victim was forced to drive the getaway car.
- At the sentencing hearing the court orally imposed a total of 26 years: the four aggravated-robbery counts (and firearm specs) effectively merged to 14 years (11 years underlying + 3 years firearm), kidnapping 11 years consecutive to robbery, and a one-year firearm specification on the intimidation count; several lesser counts were concurrent.
- The court’s written journal entry, however, differed and sentenced Vaughn to 45.5 years by treating some aggravated-robbery counts and all firearm specifications as consecutive and listing other counts as consecutive. The State conceded the journal entry did not match the oral sentence.
- The appellate court reviewed (1) whether the journal entry must be corrected to reflect the oral sentence and applicable statutory firearm-specification rules, and (2) whether the record supported the court’s decision to run the kidnapping sentence consecutively to the robbery sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the journal entry may differ from the oral sentence | State conceded the entry did not reflect the oral sentence and agreed correction was needed | Vaughn argued the entry incorrectly increased his sentence and must be corrected | The court sustained this part of the appeal and ordered a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect the oral sentence (with statutory corrections) |
| Whether all firearm specifications had to run consecutively | State argued R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) required running the two most serious specs consecutively and permitted running others consecutively | Vaughn argued the court had run the firearm specs concurrently at the hearing and the journal entry should match that oral ruling | Court held R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) requires consecutive terms for the two most serious specs; because the court orally ran specs concurrently, the court may only, on correction, run two specs consecutively—resulting in a corrected total of 29 years |
| Whether consecutive sentences (kidnapping consecutive to robberies) were supported by the record | State defended consecutive sentencing as necessary to protect the public, proportional, and supported by Vaughn’s record and conduct | Vaughn argued the record did not support the statutory findings for consecutive terms (based in part on the erroneous 45.5-year entry) | Court upheld consecutive imposition of the 11-year kidnapping term to the robbery term, finding the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were made and supported by Vaughn’s juvenile history, probation status, and the severity of the offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make statutory findings for consecutive sentences at the hearing and incorporate findings in the sentencing entry; exact statutory-language recitation not required)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (clerical errors that are mechanical and apparent on the record may be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry without resentencing)