State v. Grider
Decision Date | 18 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 78370.,78370. |
Citation | 760 NE 2d 40,144 Ohio App.3d 323 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. GRIDER, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Edward M. Walsh, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Paul Mancino, Jr.; Everett Grider, pro se.
Defendant-appellant Everett Grider appeals from the sentence imposed for his conviction on one count of rape and one count of aggravated burglary. The appellant's original sentence was reversed by this court in State v. Grider (Feb. 10, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 75720, unreported, 2000 WL 146544. Upon remand, the appellant was sentenced to a term of eight years' incarceration on each count, to be served consecutively. The appellant was found to be a sexually oriented offender at the resentencing hearing.
At the resentencing hearing the trial court stated:
The court then proceeded to inform the appellant regarding his reporting requirements as a sexually oriented offender.
The appellant sets forth four assignments of error.
The first assignment of error:
"Defendant was denied due process of law when he was sentenced to consecutive sentences."
The appellant argues that he was denied due process when the court failed to meet the requirements of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) in imposing consecutive sentences. The appellant states that tracking the language of the statute, without stating making findings of fact, was not sufficient to comply with the statute. R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) provides that the court shall impose a sentence and shall make a finding that gives its reasons for the sentence if it imposes consecutive sentences under section R.C. 2929.14. The case law generally mirrors the statutory requirement. See State v. Daniels (Apr. 26, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 77998, unreported, 2001 WL 428299, where this court noted that under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c), the trial court when imposing consecutive sentences must make findings and give its reasons. See, also, State v. Berry (Mar. 9, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 75470 and 75471, unreported, 2000 WL 263733; State v. Jordan (Nov. 12, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73478, unreported, 1998 WL 787394; State v. Collins (Dec. 11, 1997), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 71717 and 71718, unreported, 1997 WL 764812; and State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 715 N.E.2d 131.
Further, while recitation of the court's findings is a necessary component of felony sentencing in the state of Ohio, State v. Moore (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 593, 756 N.E.2d 686, it has been held that merely reciting or tracking the statutory language in R.C. 2929.14 is not sufficient to comply with the mandate set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) to provide a reason for the consecutive sentence. State v. Gonzalez (Mar. 15, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 77338, unreported, 2001 WL 259186; State v. De Amiches (Mar. 1, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 77609, unreported, 2001 WL 210020; State v. Craft (Apr. 27, 2001), Fulton App. No. 00-013, unreported; State v. Johnson (Sept. 29, 2000), Franklin App. No. 99A1463, unreported, 2000 WL 1455306.
The trial court failed to satisfy the mandates of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) when it failed to provide on the record a reason for its decision to impose consecutive sentences.
The first assignment of error is well taken.
The second, third, and fourth assignments of error will be considered together as they contain similar issues of law and fact:
In the second assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the court denied him due process by classifying him as a sexually oriented offender when, in his first appeal, this court vacated the sexual predator determination. In the third assignment of error, the appellant argues that he was denied due process because there was no indication in the indictment that he would be considered a sexually oriented offender if convicted. Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying him a hearing prior to finding him to be a sexually oriented offender.
The Ohio legislature has devised a system whereby a sentencing court must determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith, 96582
...to register arise by operation of law. Id.; see, also, State v. Moncrief, Cuyahoga App. No. 85479, 2005-Ohio-4812, at ¶23; State v. Grider (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 323; State v. Mickey (Apr. 5, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 77889." State v. Freeman, Cuyahoga App. No. 86740, 2006-Ohio-2583, ¶14. {......
-
State v. Nicely, 2004 Ohio 3847 (OH 7/9/2004)
...sentences are "separate and distinct" from the reasons for imposing them. Comer, supra at ¶19 citing State v. Grider (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 323, 326-327, 760 N.E.2d 40; State v. Zwiebel (Aug. 29, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP-61; State v. Winland (Jan. 26, 2000), Wayne App. No. {¶44} Becau......
-
State v. Comer, 2002-0351 and 2002-0422.
...its reasons for selecting consecutive sentences is separate and distinct from the duty to make the findings. State v. Grider (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 323, 326-327, 760 N.E.2d 40; State v. Zwiebel (Aug. 29, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP-61, 2000 WL 1221017; State v. Winland (Jan. 26, 2000), W......
-
People v. Arotin, 96807.
...a classification which, under Ohio law, "attaches by operation of law and . . . a hearing is not required" (State v Grider, 144 Ohio App 3d 323, 327, 760 NE2d 40, 43 [2001]; see State v Hayden, 96 Ohio St 3d 211, 215, 773 NE2d 502, 506 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1197 [2003]). That classific......