156 N.E.3d
1 opinion
On remand for resentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences on two counts that the appellant had previously been ordered to serve concurrently. With an admission by the trial court that there were no new facts to support its decision to impose the sentences consecutively under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the court's consecutive sentence findings were unsupported by the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion at appellant's resentencing hearing by imposing the sentence for Count II (insurance fraud) consecutively to the sentence for Count V (engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity). Judgment reversed and remanded. (Tucker, P.J., dissenting.)
