State v. Dixon

Summary

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals reviewed Zannie Dixon III's challenge to consecutive sentences imposed after his guilty pleas to gross sexual imposition and attempted burglary. The court held that the trial court made the required consecutive-sentence findings at the sentencing hearing but omitted the finding under Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14(C)(4)(c) from the sentencing entry. It affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the omission.

Holdings

1. The trial court made all three findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing: consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Dixon's conduct and the danger he posed to the public, and were warranted by Dixon's history of criminal conduct under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c).
2. The omission of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) finding from the sentencing entry was a clerical error and did not render the sentence contrary to law because the trial court had made the finding at the sentencing hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court made the consecutive-sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing.
2. Whether the sentencing entry was legally sufficient when it omitted the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) finding despite the court having made that finding at the sentencing hearing.
3. Whether the omission could be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry rather than requiring resentencing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded