State v. Philpot

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 104

Syllabus

Findings for the imposition of consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) jail-time credit R.C. 2967.191 discretionary bindover R.C. 2152.10(B) R.C. 2152.12(B)(3). Imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law where (1) no findings were made at a sentencing hearing in support of trial court's decision to run three 36-month sentences consecutively (2) a trial judge who was not assigned to the case stated at a sentencing hearing that the three 36-month sentences would be served consecutively based upon the assigned judge's prior representations that consecutive sentences would be imposed and (3) the assigned judge issued sentencing journal entries setting forth findings in support of the imposition of consecutive sentences even though he did not make any of the requisite findings at the sentencing hearing. Consecutive sentences are not properly imposed where one trial judge attempts to memorialize consecutive sentencing findings made by another trial judge in a sentencing journal entry. State did not dispute that trial court failed to properly calculate defendant's jail-time credit. Juvenile court complied with its obligations under R.C. 2151.12(B)(3) in transferring case to the general division as a discretionary bindover. Trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences and calculation of jail-time credit vacated and cases remanded for the trial court to (1) consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and if so, to make all of the required findings on the record and incorporate those findings in its sentencing journal entries and (2) recalculate the amount of jail-time credit to which defendant is entitled under R.C. 2967.191.