State v. Hayes

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Austin Hayes’s convictions and consecutive prison sentences arising from gross sexual imposition and violations of a protection order. The court remanded solely for a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry incorporating the consecutive-sentence findings required by Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14(C)(4).

Holdings

1. The trial court's consecutive sentences were lawful because it made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and those findings were supported by the record.
2. The omission of the consecutive-sentence findings from the judgment entry rendered the entry incomplete but did not make the sentence contrary to law; the defect could be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry.
3. The trial court adequately considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 because the record reflected consideration of the statutory purposes and factors; specific factual findings or recitation of statutory language were not required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences between the two criminal cases and on all counts within the protection-order-violation case was contrary to Ohio law.
2. Whether the trial court's sentencing entry was defective because it failed to incorporate the consecutive-sentence findings made at the sentencing hearing.

Disposition

other