 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis9/12/2003
f R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)(a), (b), or (c). Instead, they must give sufficient reasons to support the statutory findings, as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Anderson, 146 Ohio App.3d 427, 2001-Ohio-4297, at .
. While the trial court's comment about deterring other offenders is apt, it is, in fact, irrelevant to the question of whether this particular defendant should receive a consecutive sentence. Consecutive sentences will always provide the greatest deterrence to others similarly situated in the future, so this consideration does not differentiate between classes of offenders.
. The presence of a separate animus for the crimes may satisfy the first part of R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)(b), but it does not explain why the trial court felt that "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."
. We have stressed on numerous occasions that appellate courts should not have to guess what the reasons for a particular sentence are. See, e.g., State v. Turner, Montgomery App. No. 19525, 2003-Ohio-3828, , quoting State v. Rothgeb, Champaign App. No. 02CA9, 2003-Ohio-465. As the First District Court of Appeals noted in Anderson, " bsent well-articulated reasons, it is difficult to discern whether the trial court heeded the General Assembly's policy curtailing consecutive sentences." 2001-Ohio-4297, at .
. Because the trial court failed to provide reasons for its findings, the seventh assignment of error is sustained in part, but only regarding the consecutive sentence imposed for Count IV. The remainder of the assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. Accordingly, that part of the trial court judgment making the sentences consecutive is reversed, and this case will be remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with law.
VII.
. The first, fourth, and fifth assignments of error having been overruled; the second assignment of error having been sustained; the third and sixth assignments of error having been overruled as moot; and the seventh assignment of error having been sustained in part, and overruled in part, Davis's conviction and sentence on Count VIII is reversed and vacated, that part of the judgment of the trial court making the sentence imposed for Count IV consecutive with other sentences is reversed and vacated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing
Andrew P. Pickering
Richard E. Mayhall
Hon. Gerald Lorig
|