State v. Venes
2013 Ohio 1891
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Venes pleaded guilty to 98 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor and one count of possession of criminal tools.
- Original sentence: 24 years (fourteen counts eight years, three consecutive for counts 1–3, others concurrent).
- Post-Foster/ HB 86 context: 2929.14(C)(4) findings required before imposing consecutive sentences, revived in 2011.
- Court resentencing occurred in 2012; at resentencing the court did not issue explicit R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
- Appellate court held the lack of explicit findings made the sentence “contrary to law” and remanded for resentencing.
- Court also addressed proportionality of the 24-year sentence to similar offenders, concluding it was not disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive-sentence findings required | Venes | Venes | Yes; findings required and were not made |
| Alteration of standard of review for consecutive sentences | State | Venes | Standard applied; Kalish overruled for review of these findings |
| Proportionality of 24-year sentence | State | Venes | Not disproportionate to similar offenders; affirmed on that point in remand context |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (abrogation of former E4; sentencing procedures context)
- State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-489 (8th Cir. 2013) (consecutive-sentence findings requirement contextualized)
- State v. Huber, 2012-Ohio-6139 (8th Dist. 2012) (HB 86 effects on consecutive-sentencing findings)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (standard of review for post-Foster era; findings consideration)
- State v. Goins, 2013-Ohio-263 (8th Dist. 2013) (ease of imposing consecutive sentences under revived statute)
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (requirement for explicit findings before consecutive sentences)