Stаte of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josias T. Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14AP-123 (C.P.C. No. 13CR-2520)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
August 26, 2014
2014-Ohio-3700
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on August 26, 2014
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for appellee.
Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, and David L. Straight, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Josias T. Smith, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand to the trial court for resentencing.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On May 9, 2013, appellant was indicted on two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of kidnapрing, four counts of robbery, one count of tampering with evidence, and one count of failure to comply. All of the counts, except the failure-to-comply count, contained either a one-year or three-year firearm specification.
{¶ 3} On December 9, 2013, appellant entered pleas of guilty to the following five counts: (1) aggravated burglary with speсification, in violation of
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 4} Appellant assigns the following assignment of error for our review:
The trial court committed plain error in impоsing consecutive sentences without making the necessary findings in violation of
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) .
III. Discussion
{¶ 5} In his single assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making the necessary findings as required by
{¶ 6} Because apрellant did not challenge the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences at his sentencing hearing, we may revеrse appellant‘s sentence only if the sentence constitutes plain error. State v. Ayers, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-371, 2014-Ohio-276, ¶ 7. The state does not argue that the trial court made the necessary findings under
{¶ 7} Contrary to the state‘s argument, this court has consistently determined a trial court‘s failure to make the findings required by
{¶ 8} Under
If multiple prison terms are imposed оn an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or tо punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
(a) Thе offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction * * *, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple оffenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
(c) The offender‘s history оf criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public frоm future crime by the offender.
{¶ 9} The trial court is required under
{¶ 10} At appellant‘s sentencing hearing, the trial court reviеwed the purposes of felony sentencing as set out in
{¶ 11} Because thе record establishes that the trial court failed to make the findings required by
V. Conclusion
{¶ 12} Upon review of the record, we conclude the trial cоurt committed plain error. Having sustained appellant‘s assignment of error, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and remand this matter to that court for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions.
TYACK and BROWN, JJ., concur.