[Cite as State v. Romanko, 2015-Ohio-4759.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101921

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ZORYANA ROMANKO

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-14-583903-A and CR-14-585536-A 

BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and S. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 19, 2015 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

By: John T. Martin 

Cullen Sweeney 

Assistant Public Defenders 

310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Edward J. Brydle 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

9th Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
TIM McCORMACK, P.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Zoryana Romanko, appeals her consecutive sentences. 

Our review of the record confirms her claim that the trial court failed to make the 

statutory findings for consecutive sentences required by R.C. 2929.14(C). An 

imposition of consecutive sentences without the statutory findings is contrary to law. 

The state concedes the error. 

{¶2} Romanko used her job as a housekeeper to steal from families she worked 

for. Over a period of 22 months, she made almost 140 transactions in various 

pawnshops to sell the stolen jewelry, antiques, and heirlooms she stole from the families, 

netting $70,000. 

{¶3} Under a plea agreement, Romanko pleaded guilty in two separate cases. In 

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-583903, she pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary, a 

second-degree felony, and one count of theft, a fourth-degree felony. In Cuyahoga C.P. 

No. CR-14-585536, she pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, a second-degree felony. 

{¶4} In Case No. CR-14-583903, the trial court sentenced Romanko to concurrent 

two-year terms on the two burglary counts, and 18 months on the theft count, to be served 

consecutive to the burglary counts. In Case No. CR-14-585536, the trial court sentenced 

Romanko to two years for the burglary charge. The trial court ordered the terms in these 

two cases to be served consecutively, for an aggregate prison term of 51⁄2 years. 
{¶5} On appeal, Romanko raises one sole assignment. She contends that it was 

error for the court to impose consecutive sentences without making the requisite statutory 

findings. We agree. 

{¶6} H.B. 86 revived a presumption of concurrent sentences. Consecutive 

sentences can be imposed only if the trial court makes the required findings pursuant to 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 

659, ¶ 20-22. Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a court must make certain findings prior to 

imposing consecutive sentences. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: 

(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: 

(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. 

(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. 

(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that 

consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime 

by the offender. 

{¶7} Compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires the trial court to make the 

statutory findings at sentencing. However, “a word-for-word recitation of the language 
of the statute is not required. 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. In Bonnell, 

the Supreme Court of Ohio also explained that the word “finding” in this context means 

that the trial court “must note that it engaged in the analysis” and that it “considered the 

statutory criteria and specifie[d] which of the given bases warrants its decision.” Bonnell 

at ¶ 26. The court emphasized that the trial court is not required to give a “talismanic 

incantation” of the words of the statute, provided the necessary findings can be found in 

the record. Id. at ¶ 37. In addition, the trial court must also incorporate the findings 

into the sentencing entry. Bonnell at ¶ 29. 

 {¶8} In this case, Romanko was sentenced in two separate cases. Consecutive 

sentencing findings are required even when the sentences are imposed in separate cases. 

State v. Hill, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 13CA892, 2014-Ohio-1965, ¶ 20; State v. Kilmire, 9th 

Dist. Summit Nos. 27319 and 27320, 2015-Ohio-665, ¶ 18. 

 {¶9} At Romanko’s sentencing, prior to entering consecutive sentences, the court 

stated: 

 Your aggregate sentence will be a two-year sentence on 585536. A 

sentence of two and two on the burglary charges and the sentence will be a 

year-and-a-half on the theft charge; aggregate sentence at Marysville will be 

five-and-a-half-years. 

I am going to stack the two cases. 

{¶10} From this record, we are fully unable to discern that the trial court engaged 

in the correct analysis before imposing consecutive sentences. Because the trial court 
failed to make any of the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing 

consecutive sentences, the trial court’s sentence was contrary to law. The state concedes 

the error. The assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶11} We therefore vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court for 

the limited purpose of considering whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and, if so, to make the findings required by the statute. State v. 

Vargas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101796, 2015-Ohio-2856, ¶ 15. The findings are also 

to be incorporated into the sentencing entry. 

{¶12} Appellant’s sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

TIM McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR