State v. Pettus

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 2023

Syllabus

FORGERY – THEFT – R.C. 2913.61(C)(1) – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – PLAIN ERROR – JURISDICTION – R.C. 2901.11(A)(1) – SENTENCING — R.C. 2941.25 — ALLIED OFFENSES: R.C. 2913.61(C)(1) does not limit the aggregation of theft offenses under R.C. 2913.02 to theft offenses involving victims who are elderly persons, disabled adults, or military persons. Where defense counsel failed to object to a witness's testimony, and where the testimony was not used for a purpose that the trial court had previously prohibited in its ruling on a motion in limine, no plain error resulted from the admission of the testimony. Where the offense of theft took place in both Ohio and Kentucky, the defendant was subject to prosecution in Ohio pursuant to R.C. 2901.11(A)(1). Where the trial court failed to make the necessary findings to support the imposition of consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing, the imposition of consecutive sentences was in error, and therefore, the consecutive nature of the sentences must be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing as to that issue. Where the offenses of theft and forgery were committed separately during a course of criminal conduct, the trial court did not err in imposing a separate sentence for each offense. Where multiple offenses of forgery were committed both separately and with a separate animus, the trial court did not err in imposing a separate sentence for each offense.