2021 Ohio 3266
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellant Shain A. Wadding was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts in January 2019; most counts were later dismissed and on December 15, 2020 he pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (third-degree felonies).
- At sentencing on March 9, 2021 the trial court imposed two 42-month prison terms and ordered them to run consecutively (total 84 months).
- At the oral sentencing hearing the court said it was ordering consecutive terms “based upon the harm … that was done on behalf of each victim” and that consecutive terms were “appropriate,” but did not state that the harm was “great or unusual,” that consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public or to punish, or that they were not disproportionate.
- The written sentencing entry (filed March 12, 2021) contained explicit R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, including necessity to protect the public, non‑disproportionality, and that the harm was so great or unusual or that defendant’s criminal history warranted consecutive terms.
- Wadding appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the statutory consecutive‑sentence findings at the sentencing hearing; the Sixth District Court of Appeals agreed and reversed and remanded for resentencing because the oral findings at the hearing were insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without proper findings at the sentencing hearing | The State relied on the written sentencing entry containing the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to validate consecutive terms | Wadding argued the court failed to make the required statutory findings at the oral sentencing hearing (mere recitation that sentences are “appropriate” or reference to harm is insufficient) | Reversed and remanded: appellate court held the trial court did not make the required findings at the hearing; written entry cannot cure absence of oral findings and remand for resentencing is required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (trial court must engage in correct analysis, state required consecutive‑sentence findings at the sentencing hearing, and incorporate findings into the entry; word‑for‑word recitation not required)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (consecutive sentencing requires statutory findings and those findings must be made and reflected in the record)