 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith9/30/2004
the trial court erred when it failed to provide reasons in support of the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
{ } R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), governing consecutive sentencing reads, in pertinent part:
{ } "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 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."
{ } In addition to making the findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), the trial court must make findings justifying the imposition of consecutive sentences per R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Moreover, the Supreme Court of Ohio has recently held that "when imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court is required to make its statutorily enumerated findings and give reasons supporting those findings at the sentencing hearing."
{ } In the instant case, in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), the trial court made the following statement at the sentencing hearing:
{ } "The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary in order to protect the public and punish the offender and not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and the danger the offender poses to the public.
{ } "The Court finds that the offenses were committed while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing and that is in this instance he violated the terms of his probation. That harm caused by the multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of a single course of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct in that as explained above the defendant stole the credit card and then attempted to use them in the amount of $1,200.00. The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from crime by the offender."
{ } Moreover, the trial court made the following findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c):
{ } "The Court gives the following reason for imposing consecutive sentences under 2929.19(B)(2)(c) in that this is a probation violation and that the defendant's conduct in the original case was egregious in that he stole the credit cards or credit card and then used the credit card to obtain merchandise in the amount of $1,200.00."
{ } Thus, we conclude that the trial court properly adhered to the statutory requirements of both R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.19(B)(2)(c), when it imposed consecutive sentences.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|