State v. Ruff

Citation: 2017 Ohio 1430Docket: C-160385, C-160386

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; April 19, 2017; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kenneth Ruff appeals his 40-year aggregate prison sentence following resentencing after a previous remand. The trial court had initially sentenced him for multiple offenses against five victims, including attempted rape and sexual battery. On appeal, Ruff claimed the court erred in treating his aggravated burglaries and rapes as separate offenses rather than allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25, and in imposing consecutive sentences without the required findings. The Ohio Supreme Court determined that the appellate court misapplied the law, leading to a remand for reassessment of whether the offenses were of similar import. 

Upon remand, the trial court merged certain aggravated-burglary counts into the corresponding rape counts and imposed a 25-year sentence for the rapes of P.F. and K.B., along with a 15-year sentence for the rape of S.W. and attempted rape of L.H. The total sentence of 40 years results from consecutive terms from both cases. Ruff's appeal includes claims that the trial court failed to adhere to sentencing principles and did not properly inform him about drug-related conditions during incarceration. Additionally, he points out clerical errors in the judgment entries that inaccurately state he was found guilty following a bench trial instead of a jury trial. The appellate court affirms the sentences but remands for correction of the clerical errors.

The Ohio Supreme Court mandates that when a court of appeals identifies reversible error in sentencing for allied offenses, the conviction must be reversed, and a new sentencing hearing ordered, during which the state must choose which allied offense to pursue. In State v. Wilson, it was clarified that during a remand solely for allied-offense sentencing errors, the original guilty verdicts remain valid and are not subject to review. Only the affected sentences are reviewed de novo; unaffected sentences remain intact. The court also ruled that res judicata does not prevent a defendant from raising objections at a resentencing hearing, even if similar issues were not contested during the original sentencing. The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that res judicata barred a defendant from requesting judicial disqualification and challenging the proportionality of the sentence, emphasizing that the scope of resentencing included evaluating the new sentence against R.C. 2929.11 and the consistency with similar defendants' sentences. Additionally, the court stated that prior appearances before the same judge do not inhibit claims of judicial bias in later proceedings. Issues not addressed in the previous appeal are excluded from review under res judicata. In the case of State v. Temaj-Felix, the appellate court reviewed the merits of arguments regarding sentencing findings post-remand but deemed certain arguments, such as merging counts under R.C. 2941.25, barred by res judicata. Conversely, Ruff’s challenges concerning sentencing findings and requirements from the resentencing hearing were deemed permissible. The appellate court applies the standard from R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to modify or vacate sentences only if the record fails to support mandatory findings or if the sentence contravenes the law.

Ruff challenges the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing that the court did not adequately follow the requirements set forth in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The statute mandates that the trial court find that consecutive sentences are necessary for public protection or punishment, that they are not disproportionate to the offender's conduct and danger to the public, and that at least one condition from R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) or (c) applies. The court must announce these findings during sentencing and incorporate them into the sentencing entry, as established in State v. Bonnell. 

In Ruff's case, the trial court complied with these requirements by stating the necessary findings during the hearing and including them in the sentencing entries. Specifically, for case B-0907091, the court found consecutive sentences necessary due to the significant harm caused by multiple offenses and Ruff's criminal history. For case B-1000868, similar findings were made regarding the necessity and proportionality of the sentences. Ruff's assertion that further reasoning was required was deemed without merit.

Ruff also claimed that the trial court did not consider the principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. However, the court reiterated that these statutes are not fact-finding requirements, and Ruff failed to demonstrate otherwise. Additionally, he argued that the court neglected to provide necessary notifications regarding drug use and testing as per R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f). The court found that this failure was harmless since it did not prejudice Ruff's rights.

Lastly, Ruff requested corrections to his judgment entries to reflect that a jury, not the trial court, found him guilty. The state conceded this clerical error, and the court agreed that it could be corrected with a nunc pro tunc entry. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgments but remanded the case for the correction of the judgment entries.