[Cite as State v. Love, 2014-Ohio-4836.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 101089
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ANTOINE LOVE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-12-561149-A
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Jones, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 30, 2014
-i-
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Kevin P. Shannon
Wegman Hessler & Vanderburg
6055 Rockside Woods Boulevard
Suite 200
Independence, Ohio 44131
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Mahmoud Awadallah
Anthony Thomas Miranda
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Antoine Love appeals from the consecutive sentences imposed
on him after he pleaded guilty to one count of rape and one count of aggravated burglary.
{¶2} Love presents a single assignment of error, claiming that the transcript of his
sentencing hearing demonstrates that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in
imposing consecutive terms. The state concedes that Love’s claim has merit.
{¶3} The statements that the trial court made in this case consisted of the following: the
court had listened to the parties and the victim, considered the facts of the case, and “balanced
that with” Love’s criminal record. Otherwise, the trial court stated only that it had “considered
all the factors of law and determined that prison is consistent with the purposes of sentencing.”
{¶4} These comments clearly failed to meet the standard for compliance with R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive prison terms as set forth in this court’s decision in
State v. Nia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99387, 2014-Ohio-2527. Even under the more relaxed
standard of review set forth in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d
659, the trial court made none of the required findings to impose consecutive terms.
{¶5} Although the circumstances of this case indicated Love’s crimes deserved multiple
punishments, because a review of the record supports Love’s assignment of error, it is sustained.
State v. Brooks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100455, 2014-Ohio-3906, ¶ 6-7.
{¶6} Love’s sentences are reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court with
instructions to follow the mandate that the Ohio Supreme Court set forth in Bonnell. The trial
court is reminded that, according to Bonnell, the statutory findings must not only be pronounced
in open court, but must also be placed in the journal entry of sentence.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
__________________________________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR