[Cite as State v. Hull , 2022

- Ohio

- 4274.]

COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr. , P.J. Plaintiff

- Appell ee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin , J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin , J.

- vs - : : CURTIS HULL : Case No. 22

- CA

- 10 : Defendant

- Appell ant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 20CR12

- 0294

JUDGMENT: Sentence Vacated an d Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 29, 2022

APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff

- Appell ee For Defendant

- Appell ant
CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE TODD W. BARSTOW 117 E ast High Street 261 West Johnstown Road Suite 234 Suite 204 Mount Vernon, OH 43050 Columbus, OH 43230Knox County, Case No. 22

- CA

- 10 2

Wise, Earle, P. J. {¶ 1} Defendant

- Appellant, Curtis Hull, appeals his May 12, 2022 sentence from the Court of Common Pleas of Knox County, Ohio. Plaintiff

- Appellee is state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶ 2} On December 14, 2020, the Knox County Grand Jury indicted appellant on

one count of failure to use turn signal in violation of R.C. 4511.39 (Count 1) , one count of failure to stop at grade crossing in violation of R.C. 4511.61(D) (Count 2) , one count of failure to comply with order or signal of p oli ce officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) (Count 3) , one count of driving under lifetime suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.18(A) (Count 4) , one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) (Count 5) , and one count of criminal damaging in violati on of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1) (Count 6)

. {¶ 3} On April 18, 2022, appellant pled no contest to the charges. The trial court found appellant guilty of all charges . A sentencing hearing was held on May 11, 2022. By judgment entry filed May 12, 2022, the trial court sentenced appellant to thirty months on Count 3, thirty months on Count 4, and thirty months on Count 5, to be served consecutively, and ninety days on Count six, to be served concurrently to the consecutive

sentences. {¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this ma tter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
IKnox County, Case No. 22

- CA

- 10 3

{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
IMPROPERLY SENTENCING HIM TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF INCARCERATION
IN CONTRAVENTION OF OHIO ' S SENTENCING STATUTES

. "
II {¶ 6} " APPELLANT ' S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE THEREBY
DEPRIVING HIM OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO
THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. "
I {¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in improperly sentencing him to consecutive terms in contravention of Ohio's sentencing statutes. We agree. {¶ 8} In his appellate brief at 3, appellant argues the trial court fell short of the
mandate announced in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014

- Ohio

- 3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, wherein the Supreme Court of Ohio held at ¶ 37: " 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. " Appella nt argues the trial court failed to justify consecutive service between Counts 4 and 5 during the sentencing hearing. {¶ 9} In its appellate brief at 5, the state concedes the issue : "However, the transcript does not contain the findings from R.C. 2929.14(C) tha t consecutive service isKnox County, Case No. 22

- CA

- 10 4

necessary to protect the public from future crimes by the offender, and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the defendant's conduct." {¶ 10} Upon review, we find the trial court erred in imposing consecutive

sen tence s . We vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and Bonnell

. {¶ 11} Assignment of Error I is granted.
II {¶ 12} In his second assignment of error, appellant claims his trial counsel was
ineffective by failing to keep him informed of plea offers. Because of our decision in the first assignment of error, we find this assignment to be premature. {¶ 13} The sentence of the Co urt of Common Pleas of Knox County, Ohio is hereby vacated, and the matter is remanded to said court for resentencing consistent with this opinion. By Wise, Earle , P.J.
Gwin , J. and
Baldwin , J. concur.

EEW/ db