Imposition of Consecutive Sentences


Following a jury trial, a man was convicted on one count of abduction, one count of aggravated assault and one misdemeanor assault count after two particular altercations with his girlfriend. The man appealed his conviction and sentencing on the basis of five errors on behalf of the trial court: 1) The court abused its discretion in issuing consecutive sentences without making the required findings (§ 2929.14 Ohio Revised Codes), 2) The abduction conviction did not result from a fair trial because the weight of the evidence was not sufficient, 3) Defendant-Appellant's right to a fair trial was violated, 4) Defendant-Appellant was denied a fair trial due to an ineffective trial counsel, and 5) Sentencing is double jeopardy which is prohibited by law, since aggravated assault and assault are the same offense and should not warrant multiple sentences. In this case, imposition of consecutive sentences for abduction and aggravated assault convictions was error where trial court failed to make required findings, R.C. 2929.14 (C)(4), and offenses were allied; notice of appeal divested trial court of jurisdiction to issue nunc pro tunc entry to correct sentencing errors.