State v. Banks

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 4655

Syllabus

Consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C) findings. Defendant was convicted of four felony offenses aggravated assault, abduction, theft, and menacing by stalking, and a misdemeanor offense of cruelty against companion animals. The trial court imposed a prison sentence on each of the felony offenses and ordered the prison sentences to be served consecutively. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C), the trial court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender and that defendant's history of criminal conduct demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime. Although the trial found that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant's conduct, it did not find that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the danger the defendant posed to the public. Because the trial court failed to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C), the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for the limited purpose of considering whether consecutive sentences were appropriate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(2) and if so, to make the appropriate findings and incorporate those findings into the sentencing entry.