Beachwood v. ChatmonBeachwood v. Chatmon
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Glen Chatmon appeals the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences after he entered no contest pleas to charges of theft in two cases in the Shaker Heights Municipal Court. Chatmon contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him without his counsel being present and by imposing consecutive sentences without making the factual findings required pursuant to
Procedural Background
{¶2} On May 2, 2012, Chatmon was charged in Shaker Hts. M.C. No. 12-CRB-00414 with theft in violation of
{¶3} On January 7, 2014, Chatmon entered no contest pleas in both matters. On July 14, 2014, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. Chatmon was not represented by counsel at the sentencing hearing. Although Chatmon claims he had counsel, there is no record of any appearance by counsel on behalf of Chatmon in these cases. On each theft count, the trial court imposed a $600 fine ($300 of which was suspended) and sentenced Chatmon to a six-month jail term, to be served consecutively, for a total jail term of one year. The trial court also sentenced Chatmon to five years inactive probation. The trial court made no findings on the record during the sentencing hearing supporting its imposition of consecutive sentences. With regard to its imposition of consecutive sentences, the trial court stated only: “I need —
{¶4} Chatmon timely appealed, challenging his sentence and raising the following assignments of error for our review:
Assignment of Error No. I:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion by proceeding with a sentencing hearing without appellant‘s counsel and sentencing him to a jail term.
Assignment of Error No. II:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it imposed maximum and consecutive sentences for two misdemeanor offenses without making the requisite findings.
Chatmon‘s second assignment of error is dispositive of this appeal.
Legal Analysis
{¶5} In his second assignment of error, Chatmon argues that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences on the two theft offenses without making the factual findings required pursuant to
{¶6}
{¶8} In this case, no findings supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences were made on the record during the sentencing hearing, and the sole finding referenced in the sentencing entry — that consecutive sentences were imposed “due to continuing criminal activity” — was insufficient to support the imposition of consecutive sentences under
{¶9} Accordingly, we vacate Chatmon‘s sentence and remand the case for resentencing for the trial court to consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under
{¶10} Judgment reversed; sentences vacated; matter remanded for resentencing for the trial court to consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the muncipal court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR