State v. Hunter , 2015 Ohio 3498 ( 2015 )

[Cite as State v. Hunter, 2015-Ohio-3498.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 15-CA-18
:
ROBERT C. HUNTER :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 14 CR 00673
JUDGMENT: REVERSED, SENTENCE VACATED,
AND REMANDED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 26, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
KENNETH W. OSWALT ASHLEY E. LOYKE
LICKING CO. PROSECUTOR REESE, PYLE, DRAKE, et al.
CHRISTOPHER A. REAMER 36 N. Second St.
20 S. Second St., Fourth Floor P.O. Box 919
Newark, OH 43055 Newark, OH 43058-0919
Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-18 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Robert C. Hunter appeals from the March 5, 2015 Judgment of
Conviction of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} A statement of the facts underlying appellant's criminal convictions is not
necessary to our resolution of this appeal.
{¶3} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated drug
possession (methamphetamine) pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of the
fifth degree [Count I]. Appellant was also charged by bill of indictment with
unauthorized use of a motor vehicle pursuant to R.C. 2913.03(B), a felony of the fifth
degree [Count II]; aggravated drug possession (methamphetamine) pursuant to R.C.
2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree [Count III]; and one count of aggravated
drug possession (methamphetamine) pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of
the fifth degree [Count IV].
{¶4} Appellant entered negotiated pleas of guilty and first appeared before the
trial court for sentencing on February 3, 2015. Sentencing was deferred because the
trial court was not convinced appellant was fully apprised of the charges against him or
the potential penalties thereof.
{¶5} Appellant came before the trial court again on March 5, 2015. Appellee
and appellant presented the trial court with a joint recommendation of an aggregate
prison term of 18 months. The trial court declined to follow the joint recommendation
and sentenced appellant to four consecutive terms of 9 months each, or an aggregate
term of 36 months.
Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-18 3
{¶6} Appellant now appeals from the judgment entry of his conviction and
sentence.
{¶7} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶8} "I. IT WAS ERROR TO SENTENCE MR. HUNTER, A NONVIOLENT
DRUG OFFENDER WHO WAS INITIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS IN
PRISON ON JOINT RECOMMENDATION OF BOTH THE STATE AND DEFENSE
COUNSEL, TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WITHOUT PROVIDING THE
STATUTORILY REQUIRED RATIONALE THEREFOR."
ANALYSIS
I.
{¶9} Appellant argues the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to
impose consecutive prison terms and that the sentence imposed is disproportionate to
the seriousness of the offenses. Appellee concedes the requisite findings were not
made on the record at the sentencing hearing and were not incorporated into the court's
sentencing entry. We agree and thus sustain appellant's assignment of error as to the
absence of required findings in the record.
{¶10} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states:
If multiple prison terms are imposed on 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 to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are
Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-18 4
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) The offender committed one or more of the multiple
offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was
under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or
2929.18 of the Revised Code, 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 offenses 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 of criminal conduct demonstrates
that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
future crime by the offender.
{¶11} In State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St. 3d 209, 2014–Ohio–3177, 16 N.E.2d 659,
syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: "In order to impose consecutive terms of
imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing
entry, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings." The sentencing
court is not required to recite “a word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute.”
Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-18 5
Id. at ¶ 29. “[A]s long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in
the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to support the
findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” Id. A failure to make the findings
required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), however, renders a consecutive sentence contrary to
law. Id. at ¶ 34. The findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) must be made at the
sentencing hearing and included in the sentencing entry. Id. at the syllabus.
{¶12} Here, appellant was sworn for the plea colloquy with the trial court and the
court observed appellant had been through the court's intensive supervision program
before but was here again after "running from the cops." The trial court also noted
appellant wore a red jumpsuit because he was found in possession of
methamphetamine at the jail. The trial court concluded it would not follow the parties'
joint recommendation and imposed consecutive terms of 9 months each, stating the
following:
* * * *.
I find that the presumption in favor of prison--of concurrent
terms in this case is overcome by the fact that consecutive terms
are necessary to protect the public and to punish the offender. His
prior record is terrible. He has been through virtually every
potential program we have from probation to the community based
correctional facility, and he just is not amenable. His supervision
history is terrible, and so that's why I'm imposing consecutive terms
on each of the four counts.
* * * *.
Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-18 6
T. 25-26.
{¶13} In the case at bar, the trial court found only that consecutive sentences
are necessary to protect the public and to punish the offender; no findings were made
that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant's
conduct and to the danger appellant poses to the public. We are thus unable to find the
trial court made all of the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the time it imposed
consecutive sentences; neither did it incorporate all of the necessary findings into its
judgment entry. State v. Hatfield, 2015-Ohio-2846, ¶ 14 (5th Dist. Muskingum).
{¶14} Of course this case is distinguishable from Hatfield because we can glean
from the record the trial court found at least one of three additional findings, specifically,
appellant's criminal history demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime by the offender. Id. at ¶ 14. Furthermore, we are
reluctant to reverse and remand for mere recitation of the statutory factors, and Bonnell
explicitly rejects such rigid formalism. Bonnell, supra, at ¶ 29. In this case, however, in
light of appellant's argument regarding sentence proportionality, combined with
appellee's concession the record and entries are devoid of the requisite findings, we
must sustain appellant's sole assignment of error and remand this matter to the trial
court.
{¶15} We are unable to uphold the consecutive sentences on this record
because we cannot "discern that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis and
can[not] determine that the record contains evidence to support the findings." Hatfield,
supra, 2015-Ohio-2846, ¶ 13 (5th Dist. Muskingum), citing Bonnell at ¶ 29.
{¶16} Appellant's sole assignment of error is therefore sustained.
Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-18 7
CONCLUSION
{¶17} Appellant's sole assignment of error is sustained, appellant's sentence is
vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
By: Delaney, J. and
Gwin, P.J.
Hoffman, J., concur.