State v. Robinson, Unpublished Decision (12-14-2001)
State v. Robinson, Unpublished Decision (12-14-2001)
Opinion of the Court
Appellant, Scott Robinson, was named in a two-count indictment following the September 29, 1999 shooting death of his former girlfriend. Count I charged aggravated murder with a capital specification. Count II charged aggravated burglary. Attached to both counts was a firearms specification.
In a plea agreement with the state, appellant, pursuant to NorthCarolina v. Alford (1970),
Following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced appellant to a term of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty years on the aggravated murder charge. On the firearm specification the court imposed a mandatory three year consecutive term of imprisonment. The court imposed an additional five years imprisonment for the aggravated burglary, also to be served consecutively.
From this sentence appellant now appeals, setting forth the following single assignment of error:
"Defendant Appellant's Sentences Should be Reversed as the Trial Court Failed to Comply with the Mandates of Revised Code §
2919.14 they are not Supported by the Record."
Appellant discusses at length the sentencing considerations delineated in R.C.
Remaining is the consecutive five year sentence imposed for aggravated burglary, a felony of the first degree for which sentences of between three and ten years must ordinarily be imposed. R.C.
However, R.C.
In this matter, although the court could have reached the requisite conclusions, it did not articulate these findings at the sentencing hearing or in the sentencing entry. Neither did it explain its reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence. Absent such findings and explanations, the court may not impose consecutive sentences. State v.Edmonson (1999),
Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is well-taken.
On consideration whereof, the sentencing order of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is vacated with respect to consecutive sentencing for aggravated burglary. This matter is remanded to said court for entering the sentence concurrently or making the statutorily required findings and explanations. Costs to appellee.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.
Peter M. Handwork, J., Melvin L. Resnick, J., and James R. Sherck, J., CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.