State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St. 3d 463

793 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio 2003) · Supreme Court of Ohio · August 27, 2003

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that, when imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must make the required statutory findings and state supporting reasons at the sentencing hearing rather than solely in the sentencing entry. The court also held that a trial court imposing a nonminimum sentence on a first-time offender must make the required findings on the record at the sentencing hearing. The court vacated the consecutive sentences and the aggravated-robbery sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

  1. When imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must make the statutorily enumerated findings and give the reasons supporting those findings at the sentencing hearing; a later journal entry cannot substitute for the required oral findings and reasons.
  2. When imposing a nonminimum sentence on a first-time felony offender, the trial court must make the statutorily authorized findings on the record at the sentencing hearing.
  3. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the sentencing issues because Ohio law was unsettled and the sentences were consistent with then-existing case law in the relevant appellate district.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a trial court imposing consecutive felony sentences must make the required statutory findings and state the reasons supporting those findings orally at the sentencing hearing, rather than only in the sentencing journal entry.
  2. Whether a trial court imposing a nonminimum sentence on a first-time felony offender must make the statutory findings on the record at the sentencing hearing.
  3. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these sentencing issues in Comer's initial appeal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (13)

  • State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St. 3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992)(followed)
  • State v. Comer, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1428, 741 N.E.2d 892 (2001)(prior history)
  • State v. Perkins, Cuyahoga App. No. 81547, 2003-Ohio-656, 2003 WL 303090(discussed)
  • State v. Martin, 136 Ohio App. 3d 355, 362, 736 N.E.2d 907 (1999)(discussed)
  • State v. Williams, 136 Ohio App. 3d 570, 737 N.E.2d 139 (2000)(followed)
  • State v. Blackman, Lucas App. No. L-01-1349, 2003-Ohio-2216, 2003 WL 2007105(discussed)
  • State v. Koch, Lake App. No. 97-L-142, 2001 WL 1647214 (Dec. 21, 2001)(discussed)
  • State v. Grider, 144 Ohio App. 3d 323, 326-327, 760 N.E.2d 40 (2001)(followed)
  • State v. Zwiebel, Franklin App. No. 00AP-61, 2000 WL 1221017 (Aug. 29, 2000)(discussed)
  • State v. Winland, Wayne App. No. 99CA0029, 2000 WL 113052 (Jan. 26, 2000)(discussed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court