.]
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.
-vsCase 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,
, 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),
, 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),
, 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,
.”
{¶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
