transcript of the sentencing hearing in Ohio

2005A review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing demonstrates that the trial court complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) and Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 37} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 38} Assignment of Error No. 3: {¶ 39} "The defendant-appellant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel in violation of the fifth , sixth , eighth , and fourteenth amendments of the united states constitution and sections 2 , 9 , 10 and article i of the ohio constitution." {¶ 40} Appellant argues that his trial counse

2004The Ohio Supreme Court has held that "at the sentencing hearing the court `shall impose a sentence and shall make a finding that gives its reasons for selecting the sentence imposed' * * *." State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , at ¶ 20 . {¶ 24} The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that that judge carefully explained the potential sentences available for the multiple offenses.

2024Carroll No. 13 CA 892, 2014-Ohio-1965, ¶ 27 . {¶28} Appellant is correct that the trial court did not use the specific language of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) at the sentencing hearing or in its sentencing entry that at least two multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct and the harm caused by those offenses or courses of conduct was so great or unusual that no single prison term adequately reflects the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct. {¶29} However, the court did state at the hearing and in its sentencing entry the latter part of this finding in that it state

2014The court must have made the finding at the sentencing hearing. {¶ 30} The transcript of the sentencing hearing must make it “clear from the record that the trial court engaged in the appropriate analysis.” State v. Hill, 7th Dist. -9- No. 13 CA 82, 2014-Ohio-1965, ¶27 .

2016Defiance Nos. 4-12-05 and 4-12-06, 2012-Ohio-4013, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004- -12- Case Nos. 3-16-01 and 3-16-12 Ohio-6085, paragraph one of the syllabus, superseded by statute on other grounds, Singleton. {¶22} In this case, Thompson did not provide for the record a transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2012State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , at the syllabus; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 , 817 N.E.2d 864 . 4 {¶ 7} Regarding Peterson’s challenge to the trial court’s advisement of postrelease control during his sentencing hearing, we note that we have not been provided with a transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2023Imputing his conduct to the 3 individuals that G.P. and [H.E.] supplied drugs to, and were never charged for the same, is an injustice.” Id. {¶25} Upon review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we are not “left with a firm belief or conviction that the findings are not supported by the evidence.” See, State v. Gwynne, ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2022-Ohio-4607 , ––– N.E.3d ––––, ¶ 23.

2021Although we conclude that the trial court made the necessary findings at the sentencing hearing to impose consecutive sentences, we note that the trial court did not include its R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in the judgment entry as required by Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 .

2012Further, the sentence in this case is not so grossly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the sense of justice in the community. {¶42} Further, the Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010–Ohio–6320: Ashland County, Case No. 11 COA 41 12 {¶43} “For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice does not revive Ohio's former consecutive- sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster.

2012Further, the sentence in this case is not so grossly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the sense of justice in the community. {33} Further the Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2010–Ohio–6320, For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice does not revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in State v. Foster.

2018Anders Procedural History and Standard {¶ 2} Kennard’s original appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), indicating that he found “no error by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant which may be argued to this court on appeal.” Counsel raised two potential assignments of error, namely whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting Kennard’s plea and whether the court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea. {¶ 3} Upon an initial review of the record, we noted that the record con

2018Anders Procedural History and Standard {¶ 2} Kennard’s original appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), indicating that he found “no error by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant which may be argued to this court on appeal.” Counsel raised two potential assignments of error, namely whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting Kennard’s plea and whether the court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea. {¶ 3} Upon an initial review of the record, we noted that the record con

2016Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition. {¶ 4} We have independently reviewed the record, including the transcript of the sentencing hearing, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we agree with appellate counsel that there are no potentially meritorious issues for review. -3- I.

2016Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition. {¶ 4} We have independently reviewed the record, including the transcript of the sentencing hearing, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we agree with appellate counsel that there are no potentially meritorious issues for review. -3- I.

2012State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , at the syllabus; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 , 817 N.E.2d 864 . 4 {¶ 7} Regarding Peterson’s challenge to the trial court’s advisement of postrelease control during his sentencing hearing, we note that we have not been provided with a transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2012State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , at the syllabus; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2004-Ohio-6085 , 817 N.E.2d 864 . 4 {¶ 7} Regarding Peterson’s challenge to the trial court’s advisement of postrelease control during his sentencing hearing, we note that we have not been provided with a transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2010If an offender alleges in an affidavit filed with the court prior to sentencing that the offender is indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine and if the court determines the offender is an indigent person and is unable to pay the mandatory fine described in this division, the court shall not impose the mandatory fine upon the offender.” (Emphasis added.) {¶ 33} As we recently stated in State v. Howard, Montgomery App. No. 21678, 2007-Ohio-3582 , 2007 WL 2019662 , at ¶ 15: {¶ 34} “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed under the two-part test provided in Strickland v. Was

2010If an offender alleges in an affidavit filed with the court prior to sentencing that the offender is indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine and if the court determines the offender is an indigent person and is unable to pay the mandatory fine described in this division, the court shall not impose the mandatory fine upon the offender.” (Emphasis added.) {¶ 33} As we recently stated in State v. Howard, Montgomery App. No. 21678, 2007-Ohio-3582 , 2007 WL 2019662 , at ¶ 15: {¶ 34} “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed under the two-part test provided in Strickland v. Was

2007Based upon this finding, costs waived." {¶ 7} Relying solely on R.C. 2947.23 and State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580 , 2004-Ohio-5989 , the trial court denied appellant's motion to vacate.

2007Based upon this finding, costs waived." {¶ 7} Relying solely on R.C. 2947.23 and State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580 , 2004-Ohio-5989 , the trial court denied appellant's motion to vacate.

2005"While the trial court is not required `to utter any magic or talismanic words, * * * it must be clear from the record that the court made the required findings.'" Clark, supra, at ¶ 15, quoting State v. White (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 481 , 486 , 734 N.E.2d 848 . {¶ 22} To determine whether the trial court made the required statutory findings and explanations, we review the transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2005"While the trial court is not required `to utter any magic or talismanic words, * * * it must be clear from the record that the court made the required findings.'" Clark, supra, at ¶ 15, quoting State v. White (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 481 , 486 , 734 N.E.2d 848 . {¶ 22} To determine whether the trial court made the required statutory findings and explanations, we review the transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2005State v. Kelley (2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 277 , 283 ; State v. Cooper (Feb. 6, 2004), Lake App. No. 2002-L-091, 2004-Ohio-529 . {¶ 24} In examining the record in this case, we find nothing in the transcript of the sentencing hearing or in the trial court's sentencing entry that demonstrates that the trial court considered Defendant's ability to pay restitution. {¶ 25} Information contained in a presentence investigation report relating to defendant's age, heath, education and employment history, coupled with a statement by the trial court that it considered the presentence report, has been found

2005State v. Kelly (2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 277 , 283 , 762 N.E.2d 479 . {¶ 15} In examining the record in this case, we find nothing in the transcript of the sentencing hearing or in the trial court's sentencing entry that demonstrates the trial court considered Clifford's ability to pay restitution.

2003State v. Gary (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 194 , 196 . {¶ 17} In the case sub judice, this court notes that the necessary findings are included in the transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2003State v. Gary (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 194 , 196 , 750 N.E.2d 640 ; State v. Martin (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 326 , 334 , 747 N.E.2d 318 . {¶ 73} Here, the transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial court made the requisite findings but failed to put its reasoning on the record.

2002State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 174 . {¶ 17} The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial judge explained to Mr. Banks the correct potential penalties for his crime.

2002State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 174 . {¶ 18} The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial judge explained to Mr. Iafornaro the potential penalties for his crimes.

2025In Miles, “it [was] apparent from [the sentencing] entries and the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the trial court did not properly advise Miles of the minimum terms … and did not properly calculate and advise Miles of his maximum prison term.” Id.

2024Knox No. 23CA000009, 2023-Ohio-4430, ¶ 14 . {¶12} We decline to follow the dissent in Jones, and find we do not have the authority to reweigh the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. {¶13} Further, Appellant has not provided this Court with a transcript of the sentencing hearing.

2024Based on the foregoing, we find “‘the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.’” Gray at ¶ 12 , quoting Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238, at ¶ 29 .

2023Imputing his conduct to the 3 individuals that G.P. and [H.E.] supplied drugs to, and were never charged for the same, is an injustice.” Id. {¶25} Upon review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we are not “left with a firm belief or conviction that the findings are not supported by the evidence.” See, State v. Gwynne, ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2022-Ohio-4607 , ––– N.E.3d ––––, ¶ 23.

2023Our review of the record demonstrates that while the transcript of the sentencing hearing is silent as to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the sentencing entry specifically states that the court considered these statutes in fashioning Lane’s sentence. {¶ 42} In any event, the Ohio Supreme Court has made clear that “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 , 2020-Ohio-6729 , 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 20 .

2023Our review of the record demonstrates that while the transcript of the sentencing hearing is silent as to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the sentencing entry specifically states that the court considered these statutes in fashioning Lane’s sentence. {¶ 42} In any event, the Ohio Supreme Court has made clear that “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 , 2020-Ohio-6729 , 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 20 .

2023Jackson No. 15CA3, 2016-Ohio-73, ¶ 25 . 5 Case Nos. 2022-L-058, 2022-L-059 {¶17} In this case, appellant claims that the trial court failed to reference the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22.

2022Rather, he waited until after this court accepted his appeal to move to supplement the record with the transcript of the sentencing hearing, and we denied that request. {¶ 42} “Where an authenticated transcript of proceedings in the trial court is necessary to exemplify the facts which determined the issues presented there, its absence requires a reviewing court to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken.” State v. Render, 43 Ohio St.2d 17 , 330 N.E.2d 690 (1975), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2022Rather, he waited until after this court accepted his appeal to move to supplement the record with the transcript of the sentencing hearing, and we denied that request. {¶ 42} “Where an authenticated transcript of proceedings in the trial court is necessary to exemplify the facts which determined the issues presented there, its absence requires a reviewing court to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken.” State v. Render, 43 Ohio St.2d 17 , 330 N.E.2d 690 (1975), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2022Therefore, “[w]hen an 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO appeal is filed in this court without a transcript, we generally presume the regularity of that proceeding and affirm.” Bardwell, 127 Ohio St.3d 202 , 2010-Ohio-5073 , 937 N.E.2d 1274 , at ¶ 14. {¶ 43} Without a transcript of the 2008 sentencing hearing, we do not know whether the trial court failed to give all the notices about postrelease control required by R.C. 2929.19.

2022Therefore, “[w]hen an 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO appeal is filed in this court without a transcript, we generally presume the regularity of that proceeding and affirm.” Bardwell, 127 Ohio St.3d 202 , 2010-Ohio-5073 , 937 N.E.2d 1274 , at ¶ 14. {¶ 43} Without a transcript of the 2008 sentencing hearing, we do not know whether the trial court failed to give all the notices about postrelease control required by R.C. 2929.19.