Consecutive Sentencing Only Requires "Findings" not "Reasons" says 5th Dist.


In convictions of sex offenses, no error in imposing consecutive sentences where trial court found, inter alia, that defendant had history of criminal conduct and did not demonstrate true remorse, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State of Ohio vs. Paul Martin was decided 12/24/12

The 5th District (Stark County, OH) Court of Appeals sustained consecutive sentencing on the defendant's guilty plea to GSI (Gross Sexual Imposition) and Attempted GSI. The 5th District has ruled that there is no statutory requirement that the trial court articulate its reasons, it does not commit reversible error if it fails to do so, as long as it has made the required findings.