Summary
The Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirms a trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences for four fifth-degree felonies related to possessing sexually oriented images of minors. The majority holds that the trial court properly considered sentencing factors and made the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), noting that possession of over 150 images constituted great or unusual harm. A dissent argues that the record fails to support the consecutive sentencing finding because it relied on uncharged conduct rather than the offenses actually committed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the consecutive prison terms were contrary to law because the trial court failed to make or support the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- Whether the record clearly and convincingly failed to support the finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) that the harm caused by two or more offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term adequately reflected the seriousness of the conduct.
- Whether the sentencing court could consider uncharged conduct, including the volume of images possessed, when imposing consecutive sentences.
Holdings
- A trial court imposing consecutive sentences must make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate those findings into the sentencing entry, but it need not state reasons supporting each finding. The trial court made the required findings here.
- The sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and did not constitute plain error.
- A sentencing court may consider uncharged conduct and other relevant history when determining an appropriate sentence, including consecutive sentences, so long as the uncharged conduct is not the sole basis for the sentence.
Key quotations
““[A] sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.”” (¶ 5)
““In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated in 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.”” (¶ 12)
““[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.”” (¶ 18)
““The trial court is not required to turn a blind eye to evidence that clearly exists in the record.”” (¶ 19)
Factual background
Blaskis pleaded guilty to four amended fifth-degree felony counts involving the illegal use of a minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance. The offenses arose from his obtaining and possessing sexually explicit images of minors through Twitter; the record indicated that he possessed more than 150 images involving four different minor victims. The trial court imposed the minimum six-month prison term on each count, ordered the terms to run consecutively, and imposed a total 24-month sentence.
Procedural history
Blaskis was indicted on four counts arising from obtaining sexually oriented images of minor females through Twitter. He pleaded guilty to four amended fifth-degree-felony counts and received six-month prison terms on each count, to be served consecutively, for a total of 24 months. The Eleventh District affirmed the sentence.