State v. Quigley

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 2654

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences and maximum sentences. The trial court made all the factual findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the trial court explained its reasoning for imposing consecutive sentences. Although the trial court did err by failing to incorporate those findings in the Judgment Entry, this error is readily rectified by the trial court issuing a nunc pro tunc entry. Further, appellant's sentences are within the permissible statutory range, and the record shows the trial court properly considered the criteria found in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in the imposition of maximum sentences. Nor has appellant shown that any of the trial court's remarks made during sentencing resulted in appellant being denied a fair sentencing hearing. Finally, appellant's sentences do not arise to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Ohio. Judgment affirmed; case remanded for limited purpose of issuing nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate the factual findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).