[Cite as State v. McRae , 2011-Ohio-1639.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT10-0037
JAMES MCCRAE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2009-0089
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 31, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RON WELCH ROBERT D. ESSEX
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 1654 East Broad Street Suite 302
Muskingum County, Ohio Columbus, Ohio 43203
27 North Fifth Street, P.O.Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT10-0037 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant James McCrae appeals his sentence entered by the
the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On April 26, 2010, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one count of
involuntary manslaughter, in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A), with a firearm specification;
and one count of having a weapon under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A). The
parties jointly recommended a fifteen year prison sentence.
{¶3} Following a hearing, the trial court imposed the maximum, consecutive
prison sentence totaling eighteen years.
{¶4} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
{¶5} “I. IN LIGHT OF OREGON V. ICE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
FAILING TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS UNDER O.R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) TO
JUSTIFY CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.”
{¶6} Appellant asserts in the wake of the United States Supreme Court
decision in Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517, the Ohio
Supreme Court decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470, 2006-
Ohio-856, has been overruled and the fact finding provisions of R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)
have been resurrected. We disagree.
{¶7} The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in State v. Hodge
(2010), 128 Ohio St.3d 1, holding:
1
A rendition of the facts pertaining to the appeal is unnecessary for our disposition.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT10-0037 3
{¶8} “The United States Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555
U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517, 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, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470.”
{¶9} The Ohio Supreme Court concluded trial court judges are not obligated to
engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences unless the
General Assembly enacts new legislation requiring findings be made.
{¶10} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the
judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, J. and
Wise, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
Muskingum County, Case No. CT10-0037 4
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JAMES MCCRAE :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. CT10-0037
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE