Background
Eric Gowie pleaded guilty in two Hamilton County cases to four counts of identity fraud. The state and Gowie jointly recommended three-year terms on each count, all to run concurrently for a total of three years in prison.
The trial court declined the recommendation. It imposed three years for the count in one case and three concurrent three-year terms in the other, but ordered the two case-level sentences to run consecutively, for an aggregate six-year prison term. The court also ordered $35,000 in restitution.
The Court’s Holding
The First District held that the consecutive sentences were contrary to law because the trial court did not make the proportionality finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and made a finding addressing the course of conduct and harm caused, but did not find that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Gowie’s conduct and the danger he posed to the public.
The trial court’s statement that one sentence was inadequate given the harm Gowie caused did not suffice. That statement addressed harm under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b), not the separate proportionality requirement. The appellate court vacated the consecutive nature of the sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court must make each required consecutive-sentencing finding before imposing consecutive prison terms.
- A finding about the amount of harm caused does not substitute for the statutory proportionality finding.
- The court vacated only the consecutive aspect of Gowie’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that consecutive sentencing requires distinct statutory findings, even when the record supports concern about the harm caused by an offender’s conduct. Courts need not use particular formulaic language, but the record must show the required proportionality analysis.