State v. Tidmore

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1529

Syllabus

Imposition of consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) contrary to law complete proportionality finding consideration of alleged, uncharged criminal conduct during sentencing. Imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law where trial court failed to make finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the danger defendant poses to the public. Defendant was not deprived of due process or other constitutional rights based on trial court's alleged consideration of uncharged criminal conduct when imposing maximum sentences. Consecutive sentences vacated case remanded for trial court to again 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 into its sentencing journal entry.