Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that consecutive-sentence findings under Ohio Revised Code 2929.14(C)(4) must be made with consideration of the number of consecutive sentences and the resulting aggregate prison term. It further held that appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is de novo and does not require deference to the sentencing court’s findings, although reversal or modification requires a clear and convincing finding that the record does not support them. The court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming Susan Gwynne’s 65-year sentence and remanded for further review, while dismissing the Eighth Amendment claim as improvidently accepted.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a sentencing court to consider the number of consecutive sentences and the resulting aggregate prison term when making necessity and proportionality findings.
- Whether appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires deference to the sentencing court's consecutive-sentence findings or instead requires de novo review of the record under a clear-and-convincing standard.
- Whether Gwynne's 65-year sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Holdings
- When making the necessity and proportionality findings required for consecutive sentences, a trial court must consider the number of consecutive sentences it intends to impose and the aggregate prison term that will result. The findings are not merely threshold findings authorizing unlimited consecutive sentence stacking.
- Appellate review of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not require deference to the sentencing court's findings. The reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of the record and may modify or vacate consecutive sentences, including the number of consecutive terms, when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- Gwynne's Eighth Amendment proposition of law was dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
Key quotations
“We hold that when a sentencing court makes the statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences, it must consider the number of sentences that it will impose consecutively along with the defendant’s aggregate sentence that will result. We additionally hold that upon a de novo review of the record, an appellate court may reverse or modify a defendant’s consecutive sentences—including the number of consecutive sentences imposed—when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.” (¶ 12)
“We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court so it may consider whether the record in this case clearly and convincingly does not support the consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) as they pertain to the sentencing court’s order of consecutive sentences on each count.” (¶ 31)
Factual background
For approximately eight years, Susan Gwynne stole items of sentimental and monetary value from elderly residents of nursing homes and assisted-living facilities while working as or posing as a nurse's aide. She was originally indicted on 86 felony counts and 15 misdemeanor counts, then pleaded guilty to 17 second-degree burglaries, four third-degree thefts, ten fourth-degree thefts, and 15 misdemeanor receiving-stolen-property offenses. The trial court imposed consecutive felony sentences that produced an aggregate 65-year prison term.
Procedural history
Gwynne pleaded guilty to multiple burglary, theft, and receiving-stolen-property offenses after the State dismissed 55 counts. The trial court imposed consecutive felony sentences totaling 65 years. The Fifth District initially reduced the sentence to 15 years, but this court reversed and remanded in State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169. On remand, the Fifth District affirmed the 65-year sentence, and Gwynne again appealed. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded for review under the standards clarified in this opinion, while dismissing the Eighth Amendment claim as improvidently accepted.
Remand instructions
The Fifth District Court of Appeals must determine whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentencing findings as they relate to each consecutive sentence imposed and the resulting aggregate sentence.