Court Opinion

ID: 9380599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 17:06:18.970478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.343874
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Gordon, 2023-Ohio-887.]

               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NO. 2022-P-0024

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeal from the
        -v-                                      Court of Common Pleas

JERRIMIE A. GORDON,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2020 CR 00701
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                     Decided: March 20, 2023
                                 Judgment: Affirmed and remanded

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Donald K. Pond, Jr., 567 East Turkeyfoot Lake Road, Suite 107, Akron, OH 44319
(For Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Jerrimie A. Gordon, appeals the judgment of the Portage County

Court of Common Pleas, resentencing him to consecutive sentences on two counts of

felony-three sexual battery. At issue is whether the trial court complied with its obligation

to set forth the necessary statutory findings included in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in its judgment

entry. The matter is affirmed but remanded for the trial court to file a nunc pro tunc

judgment incorporating the sentencing findings it properly made at the resentencing

hearing.
       {¶2}   In September 2020, appellant was indicted on one count of rape, in violation

of R.C. 2907.02, a felony of the first degree and one count of sexual battery, in violation

of R.C. 2907.03, a felony of the third degree. In January 2021, a supplemental indictment

was filed alleging an additional count of rape, under the same code section, and an

additional count of sexual battery, also under the same code section. Appellant ultimately

entered a plea of guilty to two counts of sexual battery, felonies of the third degree. The

trial court accepted appellant’s plea and nollied the remaining counts. Appellant was

sentenced to two terms of 48 months of imprisonment, to be served consecutively and

was categorized a Tier III Sex Offender.

       {¶3}   Appellant appealed the sentence in State v. Gordon, 11th Dist. Portage No.

2021-P-0061, 2022-Ohio-337. This court reversed and remanded the matter for

resentencing. This court determined the trial court failed to make the necessary statutory

findings to support consecutive sentences both at the sentencing hearing and in its

judgment entry. Id. at ¶ 6.

       {¶4}   The trial court conducted a resentencing hearing during which it made the

requisite statutory findings. The trial court, however, failed to incorporate the findings into

its sentencing entry. Appellant again appeals assigning the following error:

       {¶5}   “The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences upon appellant,

absent the findings required by law in accordance with R.C. 2929.14 and State v.

Bonnell.”

       {¶6}   This court reviews consecutive felony sentences pursuant to R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). That subsection provides, in pertinent part:

              The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of
              this section shall review the record, including the findings
                                              2

Case No. 2022-P-0024
             underlying the sentence or modification given by the
             sentencing court.

             The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise
             modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may
             vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing
             court for resentencing. The appellate court’s standard of
             review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
             discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized
             by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the
             following:

             (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s
             findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * *;

              (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

      {¶7}   Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), separate prison terms for multiple

offenses may be ordered to be served consecutively if the court finds it is necessary to

protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender; 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 factors in R.C.

2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) are present. Those factors include 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.
                                             3

Case No. 2022-P-0024
       {¶8}   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[.]” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209,

2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37.

       {¶9}   At the sentencing hearing, after ordering appellant serve 48 months on each

count consecutively, the trial court made the following statutory findings:

              The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to
              protect the public from future crimes and to punish the
              defendant.       The consecutive sentences are not
              disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant’s
              conduct and to the danger the defendant poses to the public
              and the victim.

              At least two or more of the offenses were committed as part
              of the one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused
              by two or more of the multiple offenses committed was so
              great or unusual that no single prison term adequately reflects
              the seriousness of the conduct.

       {¶10} The foregoing findings, however, were not incorporated into the court’s final

judgment on sentence.

       {¶11} Appellant does not take issue with the nature of the court’s statutory

findings; he instead merely asserts the trial court committed error by failing to incorporate

the findings into the judgment. The state concedes the error and recommends this court

remand the matter to hold another resentencing hearing and either: (1) make the

necessary findings and incorporate the same into the ultimate entry or (2) impose

concurrent sentences. We agree the failure to properly incorporate the required findings

rendered the court’s action incomplete; because the trial court made the necessary

                                             4

Case No. 2022-P-0024
findings at the sentencing hearing, however, an additional sentencing hearing is

unnecessary.

            {¶12} “A trial court’s inadvertent failure to incorporate the statutory findings in the

sentencing entry after properly making those findings at the sentencing hearing does not

render the sentence contrary to law; rather, such a clerical mistake may be corrected by

the court through a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect what actually occurred in open court.”

Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, at ¶ 30; see also State v. Moore, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-

G-3195, 2014-Ohio-5183, ¶ 18.

            {¶13} Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s imposition of

consecutive sentences but remand the matter and instruct the trial court to issue a nunc

pro tunc sentencing entry which includes the court’s consecutive sentence findings. See

State v. Olp, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2015-A-0033, 2015-A-0034, 2016-Ohio-3508,

¶ 19, and 25. See also App.R. 9(E) (“If anything material to either party is omitted from

the record by error or accident or is misstated * * * the court of appeals, on proper

suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that omission or misstatement be corrected

* * *.”).

            {¶14} Appellant’s assignment of error lacks merit.

            {¶15} For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed, but the matter is remanded for the issuance of a nunc pro tunc entry to correct

the court’s clerical error, consistent with this opinion.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                                   5

Case No. 2022-P-0024