Court Opinion

ID: 9802323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 09:03:27.022663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:35.125659
License: Public Domain

Mary J. Boyle, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 16} This is not a Baker issue! The majority does not dismiss this appeal based upon a Baker issue. Thus, respectfully I write separately, as I do not agree with the dissent and concur completely with the majority opinion.
{¶ 17} In my review of the record, following the bench trial, the trial court failed to find Go Invest Wisely, L.L.C. (“GIW”), guilty of Counts 2 through 26. Further, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced GIW only on Count 1, again never addressing the remaining 25 counts.
{¶ 18} The first sentencing judgment entry also reflects the court’s failure to find GIW guilty and its failure to sentence GIW on the 25 other counts. Although the trial court tried to correct the error in sentencing in its revised judgment entry, that attempt did not cure the error, as GIW’s right to be present at every critical stage of the proceedings pursuant to Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution and Crim.R. 43(A) encompassed the right to be present during the imposition of the determination of guilt and of the sentence. State v. Nichols, 5th Dist. No. 2006CA0077, 2007-Ohio-3257, 2007 WL 1840865.