The Akron Legal News

Consecutive sentences in a rape case properly imposed

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 24, 2014

A panel of three judges in the 9th District Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Summit County Court of Common Pleas properly imposed consecutive sentences in a rape case.

Larry Johnson was indicted on charges of rape, sexual battery and gross sexual imposition in 2012. He pleaded guilty to rape and gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to 11 years in prison on the rape count and five years on the remaining count.

On appeal, the 9th District court determined that the maximum term for the rape count was 10 years and the case was remanded for resentencing, where the Summit County court reduced the rape sentence by one year and ordered the sentences on each count to run consecutively to each other and to a sentence Johnson had received in another case.

In his most recent appeal, Johnson argued that the trial court did not make the findings that are required to run the sentences he received consecutive to each other.

Writing on behalf of the district’s appellate panel, Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal held, “In this case, the trial court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public or punish Mr. Johnson and that they were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Mr. Johnson’s conduct or the danger that he poses to the public.”

Additionally, the trial court noted on the record and in its sentencing entry that Johnson committed his offenses while under supervision for another offense.

Johnson contended that the fact that he committed his offenses under supervision justified the court’s order to run his sentences consecutive to the other case.

However, he claimed that, in order to make the prison term for two offenses in a single case run consecutive to each other, a court must find that at least two of his multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct or that his criminal history necessitates consecutive sentences in order to protect the public.

“No authority is offered in support of this argument and it overlooks the plain language of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” wrote Judge Hensal.

Johnson also claimed that the trial court did not adequately explain why consecutive sentences were necessary.

“He argues that the mere fact that he violated community control did not justify the trial court ordering his sentences in this case to be served consecutive to each other and consecutive to the term he received in the other case,” wrote Judge Hensal.

The appellate panel cited the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Bonnell (2014-Ohio-3177) where the high court held that, “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.”

The court of appeals rejected Johnson’s argument on those grounds and ultimately ruled that the trial court complied with all applicable sentencing rules and statutes.

Judges Beth Whitmore and Carla Moore concurred to affirm the judgment of the Summit County court.

The case is cited State v. Johnson, 2014-Ohio-4784.

[Back]