State v. Burns
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Burns, 2005-Ohio-2499.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, : : CASE NOS. CA2004-05-117 CA2004-05-118 (Accelerated Calendar) : -vs: JEFFREY K. BURNS, Defendant-Appellant. O P I N I O N 5/23/2005 : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2004-02-0240 Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Randi E. Froug, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45012-0515, for plaintiff-appellee Fred Miller, 246 High Street, Hamilton, OH 45011, for defendantappellant POWELL, P.J. {¶1} This is an accelerated appeal from the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas sentencing defendantappellant, Jeffrey Burns, for breaking and entering, and forgery.1 1. Pursuant to Loc.R. 6(A), we have sua sponte assigned this appeal to the accelerated calendar. Butler CA2004-05-117 CA2004-05-118 {¶2} We overrule appellant's first assignment of error because the common pleas court did not err in its imposition of consecutive sentences. The record shows that the court complied with the dictates of State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003Ohio-4165, by sufficiently articulating the findings in R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and the reasons for those findings on the record at the sentencing hearing. The record also does not show that the court improperly considered an "unindicted greater offense." {¶3} Further, the fact that the common pleas court judge and not a jury made the findings to support consecutive sentences did not violate appellant's right to a jury trial pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004), ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531. Blakely restated the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Blakely at 2536, quoting Apprendi at 490. Blakely defined "statutory maximum" as "the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant." Blakely at 2537. It is clear that the term "statutory maximum," as used in Apprendi, Blakely, and the subsequent case of U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan (2005), ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, refers only to the maximum sentence for a single crime, not the maximum aggregate sentence for multiple, separate crimes. Therefore, Blakely does not - 2 - Butler CA2004-05-117 CA2004-05-118 limit a sentencing court's discretion to impose consecutive senSee State v. Collier, Butler App. No. CA2003-11-282, tences. 2005-Ohio-944, at ¶41; State v. Wheeler, Washington App. No. 04CA1, 2004-Ohio-6598, at ¶23; State v. Taylor, 158 Ohio App.3d 597, 2004-Ohio-5939, at ¶26; State v. Abdul-Mumin, Franklin App. Nos. 04AP-485 and 04AP-486, 2005-Ohio-522, at ¶30. {¶4} We overrule in part and sustain in part appellant's second assignment of error. We reject appellant's argument as to the common pleas court's imposition of $1,000 in fines because, contrary to appellant's argument, R.C. 2947.14 does not require a sentencing court to hold a hearing before imposing a fine. See State v. Meyer (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 373, 377. However, we find that the court erred in imposing court costs. The court clearly stated at the sentencing hearing that the court would not impose court costs, yet in its judgment entry, the court imposed court costs. The state concedes that the costs order in the judgment entry is a clerical error and asks this court to correct the error. We therefore modify the common pleas court's sentence and vacate the imposition of costs. See State v. Haynes, Franklin App. No. 03AP-574, 2004-Ohio-591, at ¶6. The court's judgment is affirmed in all other respects. - 3 - Butler CA2004-05-117 CA2004-05-118 {¶5} Judgment affirmed as modified. WALSH and BRESSLER, JJ., concur. - 4 - [Cite as State v. Burns, 2005-Ohio-2499.]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
