[Cite as State v. Ventura, 2024-Ohio-2311.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

ANTHONY VENTURA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-240051

TRIAL NO. B-2105358

 O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 18, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Timothy J. McKenna, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

KINSLEY, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Anthony Ventura appeals from the trial court’s 

judgment sentencing him to two 11-year sentences on two counts of rape, to be served 

consecutively, for an aggregate term of 22 years. In his sole assignment of error, 

Ventura argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without 

making the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Ventura also suggests that,

because the trial court considered nonstatutory factors in imposing consecutive terms 

of imprisonment, he should have received the presumptive concurrent time for an 11-

year sentence rather than the aggregate 22-year sentence.

{¶2} We agree with Ventura that the trial court failed to make the required 

findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) pertaining to the necessity and proportionality of 

consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of consecutive 

sentences and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶3} Ventura was indicted for two counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02. 

The indictment alleged that Ventura engaged in fellatio with two children, who were 

under five years old. 

{¶4} Ventura initially pleaded not guilty, but on October 30, 2023, withdrew 

his pleas of not guilty in exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement not to seek a 

mandatory life prison sentence for the offenses. The trial court accepted Ventura’s 

pleas of guilty to two counts of rape.

{¶5} On January 4, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing at which

Ventura was sentenced to the maximum sentence of 11 years on both counts of rape.

The trial court ordered Ventura to serve the sentences consecutively for a total 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

aggregate sentence of 22 years. Ventura was further classified as a Tier III sex offender 

pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2950. 

{¶6} Ventura now appeals.

Consecutive Sentences

{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Ventura argues the trial court erred in 

imposing consecutive sentences where it failed to make the required findings under 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The state concedes the error.

{¶8} The Ohio Supreme Court set forth specific standards for appellate 

review of consecutive sentences in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28-29. Bonnell directs us to “review the record, including the 

findings underlying the sentence and to modify or vacate the sentence if [we] clearly 

and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings 

under division (C)(4) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code.” Id. at ¶ 28. But where 

the trial court makes no findings under subsection (C)(4), Bonnell imposes different 

rules. Id. at ¶ 29. A trial court must state the required findings as part of the 

sentencing hearing to give notice to the defendant of the basis for imposing 

consecutive terms of imprisonment. Id. And these findings should be incorporated 

into the sentencing entry as well. Id. While a “word-for-word recitation” of the statute 

is not required, the record must contain some indication that the trial court engaged 

in the correct analysis for the appellate court to uphold the consecutive-sentencing 

findings. Id. 

{¶9} In a more recent case, the Ohio Supreme Court refined the Bonnell

standard, holding that “[t]he plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an 

appellate court to defer to a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

court’s findings must be upheld unless those findings are clearly and convincingly not 

supported by the record.” State v. Gwynne, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5. 

But, as we observed in State v. Mathews, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-240016, 2024-

Ohio-1863, ¶ 24, Bonnell rather than Gwynne applies when the trial court completely 

failed to make the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Ventura’s case is such 

a situation. 

{¶10} Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a court may impose consecutive prison 

terms:

if the court finds that 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.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

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

consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from 

future crime by the offender. 

{¶11} In neither its sentencing entry nor at the sentencing hearing did the trial 

court make any of these findings, besides a determination that Ventura qualified for 

consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b). Instead, at the hearing, the trial 

court explained its basis for consecutive sentences as follows:

I am going to make a finding that consecutive sentences are 

warranted because of the ages of the victims, the harm caused to the 

victims, and just the lack of remorse. It’s the lack of even trying to do 

anything to even show that you are sorry to make an effort to 

rehabilitate yourself. Basically you just stayed out for two years and did 

nothing.

And in its sentencing entry, the trial court wrote: 

In imposing the forgoing sentences the court has given 

consideration to the number of sentences run consecutively and the 

aggregate term of imprisonment imposed upon the defendant.

* * * 

Specifically, the court finds that at least two of the multiple 

offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and 

the harm cause 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 defendant’s conduct.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

{¶12} In reaching this decision, the trial court failed to make the required 

findings contained in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that consecutive sentences were necessary to 

protect the public or punish the offender and that consecutive sentences were not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of Ventura’s conduct and to the danger he posed 

to the public. While the trial court need not cite every word of the statute, the trial 

court must still demonstrate that it made all of the required findings under R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4). And here, the trial court did not discuss the seriousness and

proportionality factors under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Thus, we cannot discern that the 

trial court made the necessary findings under R.C. 2929.19(C)(4) in imposing 

consecutive sentences.

{¶13} Faced with similarly deficient sentencing entries, courts, including this 

one, have reversed the imposition of consecutive sentences and remanded the cause

to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing on the issue of consecutive sentences. 

See, e.g., Mathews, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-240016, 2024-Ohio-1863; State v. Hoy, 

10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 23AP-38, 23AP-39, 23AP-40, 23AP-41, 23AP-42, 23AP-43, 

23AP-44, 23AP-45, 23AP-46, and 23AP-47, 2024-Ohio-1555; State v. Schaus, 6th 

Dist. Lucas No. L-23-1146, 2024-Ohio-1515. We reach the same conclusion here.

{¶14} We therefore sustain Ventura’s assignment of error, reverse the

imposition of consecutive sentences, and remand this cause for resentencing 

consistent with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

BOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.