[Cite as State v. Bates, 2021-Ohio-1966.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

JAMIE E. BATES, : Case No. 20-CA-015 

 : 20-CA-016 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Holmes County 

Municipal Court, Case Nos. 

17CR084 and 19CR063 

 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 9, 2021 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

ROBERT K. HENDRIX DAVID M. HUNTER 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 244 West Main Street 

Holmes County, Ohio Loudonville, Ohio 44842 

164 E Jackson Street 

Millersburg, Ohio 44654 
Holmes County, Case Nos. 20-CA-015, 20-CA-016 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jamie Bates appeals her sentence issued by the 

Holmes County Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On October 10, 2017, the Holmes County Grand Jury indicted appellant in 

Case No. 17CR084 on one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 

2925.11(A) and 2925.11(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree, one count of driving under 

suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.16(A) and 4510.16(D)(1), an unclassified 

misdemeanor, one count of signals before turning or stopping in violation of R.C. 

4511.39(A) and 4511.39(B), a minor misdemeanor, one count of violation of lanes of 

travel on roadways in violation of R.C. 4511.33(A) and 4511.33(B), a minor 

misdemeanor, one count of possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and 

2925.11(C)(3)(a), a minor misdemeanor, and one count of illegal use or possession of 

marijuana drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.141(C) and 2925.141(F), a minor 

misdemeanor. The indictment also contained three forfeiture specifications. At her 

arraignment on October 19, 2017, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. 

{¶3} On May 17, 2019, appellant withdrew her former not guilty plea and entered 

a plea of guilty to the offenses of aggravated possession of drugs and driving under 

suspension along with a forfeiture specification. The remaining charges were dismissed. 

{¶4} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on July 12, 2018, appellant was 

sentenced to serve 180 days in jail or the Stark Regional Community Corrections Center 

(SRCCC) and two (2) years of community control. Appellant was advised that if she 

violated her community control sanctions, she could face a stated prison term of eleven 
Holmes County, Case Nos. 20-CA-015, 20-CA-016 3 

(11) months on the aggravated possession of drugs charge. Appellant also was fined 

$100.00. 

{¶5} On June 3, 2019, appellant was indicted by the Holmes County Grand Jury 

in Case No. 19CR063 on one count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3) and 

2913.02(B)(2), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of forgery in violation of R.C. 

2913.31(A)(1) and 2913.31(C)(1)(b), a felony of the fifth degree. At her arraignment on 

June 5, 2019, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. 

{¶6} As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on February 13, 2020, appellant 

was sentenced to serve six (6) months in jail and five (5) years of community control and 

was advised that a violation of her community control sanctions could result in a stated 

prison term of eleven (11) months on the forgery charge. Appellant also was ordered to 

pay restitution in the amount of $5,090.00 

{¶7} On July 16, 2020, the State filed a Motion to Revoke/Modify Community 

Control/Probation in both cases. Appellant admitted to the violations and the trial court 

found that she had violated the terms and conditions of her community control. On 

September 3, 2020, the trial court sentenced appellant for her community control 

violations. Appellant was ordered to serve both eleven (11) month sentences 

consecutively. The trial court, however, suspended the prison sentences and placed 

appellant back on community control. 

{¶8} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal: 

{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.” 
Holmes County, Case Nos. 20-CA-015, 20-CA-016 4 

I 

{¶10} Appellant, in her sole assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred 

in sentencing her to consecutive sentences. 

{¶11} “An appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only 

if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial 

court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to 

law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1. 

{¶12} Appellant argues that the trial court could not impose consecutive 

sentences on her for her violation of community control because the trial court failed to 

advise her of the possibility of consecutive sentences at the time of her sentencing in 

Case No. 19CR063. 

{¶13} In State v. Jones (7th Dist.) Harrison No. 19-HA3, 2020-Ohio-762, the 

court held that a court need not notify a defendant, at the time it imposes a community 

control sanction, of the consecutive nature of the sentences. However, in imposing 

consecutive sentences, the trial court still must comply with R.C. 2929.14(C). 

{¶14} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) governs consecutive sentences and states the

following: 

{¶15} (4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of 

multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms 

consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the 

public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the 

offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following: 
Holmes County, Case Nos. 20-CA-015, 20-CA-016 5 

{¶16} (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the 

offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to 

section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release 

control for a prior offense. 

{¶17} (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or 

more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses 

so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses 

committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness 

of the offender's conduct. 

{¶18} (c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive 

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. 

{¶19} “In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is 

required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing 

and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to state 

reasons to support its findings.” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 

16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus. “[A] word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute is not 

required, and as long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in 

the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to support the 

findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” Id. at ¶ 29. 

{¶20} In the case sub judice, the trial court found on the record that consecutive 

sentences were necessary to protect the public or to punish the offender and were not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes that appellant committed and the danger 
Holmes County, Case Nos. 20-CA-015, 20-CA-016 6 

that appellant posed to the public. The trial court also found that that appellant had a 

history of criminal conduct. 

{¶21} However, we note that the trial court did not incorporate all of its R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4) findings into its judgment entry. In the instant case, the sentence was not 

authorized by law because the court failed to incorporate the findings required by R.C. 

2929.14 in its judgment entry. Because the court made the findings from the bench during 

the sentencing hearing, the error may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry pursuant 

to Bonnell, supra. However, appellant's claim that the evidence in the record does not 

support the imposition of consecutive sentences is not reviewable pursuant to R.C. 

2953.08(D)(1). The assignment of error is accordingly sustained in part and overruled in 

part. 

{¶22} This judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions 

to correct the sentencing entry in the instant case by virtue of a nunc pro tunc order. 

By: Baldwin, P.J. 

Gwin, J. and 

Wise, John, J. concur.