Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-558346
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Robert L. Tobik Chief Public Defender John T. Martin Assistant Public Defender.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Edward Fadel Assistant County Prosecutor.
BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and EA. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE.
(¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Paris Hammond ("Hammond"), appeals his sentence for two counts of felonious assault. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
(¶ 2} In January 2012, Hammond was charged in a ten-count indictment. Count 1 charged him with attempted murder. Counts 2-7 charged him with felonious assault. Count 8 charged him with improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation. Count 9 charged him with the discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises. Count 10 charged him with having a weapon while under disability. Each of Counts 1-9 carried one- and three-year firearm specifications.
(¶ 3} Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hammond pled guilty to two amended counts of felonious assault (Counts 2 and 4) with a three-year firearm specification. The one-year firearm specification on both counts was deleted and Counts 1, 3, and 5-10 were nolled. The trial court sentenced Hammond to three years in prison on the firearm specification in Count 2, to be served prior to seven years in prison on the amended felonious assault charge, and three years in prison on the firearm specification in Count 4, to be served prior to eight years in prison on the base felonious assault charge. The trial court merged the firearm specifications in both counts and ordered the base charges be served consecutively for a total of 18 years in prison.
(¶ 4} Hammond now appeals, raising the following sole assignment of error for review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences when it failed to make findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
(¶ 5} In the sole assignment of error, Hammond argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences without making the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
(¶ 6} Recently, this court addressed the standard of review used by appellate courts when reviewing challenges to the imposition of consecutive sentences in State v. Venes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891. In Venes, we held that the standard of review set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, was no longer valid. We stated:
In [Kalish], the supreme court considered the relevant standard of review in the post-Foster era in which the findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences under former R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) had been declared unconstitutional. A plurality of the court held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) was inapplicable because it expressly related to "findings" that had been abrogated as unconstitutional. Instead, the plurality set forth the following method of reviewing criminal ...