Is Sentence 'Contrary to Law' If Court Did Not Impose Consecutive Prison Terms Based on Misreading of Law?
Where Judge Incorrectly Believed Concurrent Sentences Were Mandatory
State of Ohio v. Jeremy S. Damron, Case no. 2010-0937
10th District Court of Appeals (Franklin County)
ISSUE: Does a judge sentencing a criminal offender for two different crimes impose a sentence that is "contrary to law" when he states on the record that a defendant's crimes merit consecutive sentences, but proceeds to impose two separate, concurrent sentences based on the judge's mistaken belief that by doing so the court is complying with the requirement in R.C. 2941.25 that convictions for allied offenses of similar import must be "merged" for sentencing purposes?