The Eighth District Court of Appeals sent a domestic violence case back to the trial court, because the judge failed to speak one critical finding aloud at the sentencing hearing—namely, that consecutive sentences were not “disproportionate” to the defendant’s conduct and the danger he posed. The reversal came not because a 48-month sentence for a defendant with an extensive criminal record was too harsh, but because proper procedure remains mandatory, even when the facts may cry out for severe punishment.
After Doneic Lewis pleaded guilty to two counts of endangering children, one count of domestic violence, one count of strangulation, in October 2024, he was sentenced to a total of 48 months in prison, with an 18-month term running consecutively to concurrent 30-month terms. The victim—a minor—suffered a broken orbital bone. Lewis’s criminal history spanned over a decade and included prior convictions for domestic violence, burglary, felonious assault, and weapons offenses.
In January 2025, the Eighth District vacated the Lewis’s consecutive sentences and remanded for resentencing. This reversal does not mean that Lewis’s sentence was wrong. Rather, it indicates that his sentencing was incomplete.
Why Did the Eighth District Reverse the Consecutive Sentences?
Amid changing sentencing landscapes and evolving case law, Ohio’s statutory framework for consecutive sentences is clear. Ohio law presumes that sentences run concurrently. This presumption protects defendants from excessive punishment by requiring trial courts to justify any departure from these guidelines. Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), to impose consecutive sentences and override the presumption that sentences run concurrently, a trial court must make three findings at the sentencing hearing.
First, consecutive sentences must be necessary to protect the public or punish the offender. Second, consecutive sentences must not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and the danger posed to the public. Third, at least one statutory factor must apply, such as the defendant’s criminal history, commission of offenses while on probation, or commission of multiple offenses.
The trial court must speak about these findings aloud during the sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the written judgment entry. A written entry alone cannot cure the absence of oral findings.
Trial Court Made Two Findings, But Not All Three
In Lewis’s case, the Eighth District determined that the trial court judge made the first finding clearly when he stated: “I don’t think a minimum sentence is going to adequately protect the public or punish the offender.”
The court also satisfied the third requirement by methodically detailing Lewis’s criminal record. The judge recounted convictions from 2011 forward: “According to the post-sentence report, you have a lengthy criminal record starting from when you were a juvenile with domestic violence, robbery. Those were in 2011. An assault in 2012. Domestic violence in 2012. Domestic violence in 2012. Assault in 2013.” The litany continued through his adult convictions.
The judge concluded: “You have a history of juvenile convictions, adult convictions. I don’t think based on your record we could say that you led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years.”
The trial court also discussed the severity of Lewis’s conduct at length, emphasizing the victim’s broken orbital bone and the potential for serious physical harm in a domestic violence context. The court found no provocation, noted the injury was exacerbated by the victim’s age, and rejected any suggestion that Lewis could have reasonably believed his actions would not cause injury. However, in his appeal, Lewis argued that the trial court never made the second of the three statutorily required findings. Lewis asserted that, therefore, the consecutive sentences should be vacated.
The Eighth District agreed. The trial judge never addressed whether consecutive sentences were disproportionate to the danger Lewis posed. Lewis’s sentence was vacated. On appeal, the Eighth District reversed the consecutive sentences
It is tempting to justify the consecutive sentences based on the conduct and criminal record at hand. But as the Eighth District’s analysis makes clear, procedural compliance must remain independent from the substantive outcome. The critical question is whether the trial court made the required findings at the time of sentencing, not whether those findings would have been supported by the facts.
The appellate court explained: “Although the trial court is not required to recite any particular magic words when making its findings, we must be able to discern from the record that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis.”
The Eighth District acknowledged the trial court’s thorough discussion of Lewis’s conduct and criminal history, but the court declared that discussing seriousness is not the same as addressing proportionality.
“Here, the trial court never mentioned the word ‘disproportionate,’” the appellate court noted. “The trial court discussed the seriousness of his conduct . . . however, [it] must make the findings that Lewis’s consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the danger he poses to the public.”
The trial court’s written journal entry contained the proper language, stating that consecutive sentences were “not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and to the danger defendant poses to the public.” But Ohio law requires findings to be made orally at the sentencing hearing, not merely in the paperwork.
The Eighth District was persuaded by the principle that the record must allow a reviewing court ascertain evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Without corresponding oral findings during the hearing, it held, the written language carried no legal effect.
This case will now return to the trial court for resentencing. The judge may impose the same 48-month consecutive prison sentence—18 months consecutive to 30 months—but only after it explicitly finds, orally and on the record, that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the danger Lewis poses.
What Are the Implications?
Although it remains unclear how consistently other appellate courts will apply this principle, the Eighth District has made clear that trial courts must create a reviewable record demonstrating they engaged in the required statutory analysis before overriding Ohio’s presumption of concurrent sentences.
Trial judges must make all three findings explicitly and separately at the sentencing hearing. Clearly addressing proportionality when making the second finding is essential. Written journal entries cannot cure gaps in the oral record, and discussing the seriousness of the offense is not enough. Judges must directly address whether consecutive time is proportionate to that seriousness.
If followed consistently, the Eighth District’s ruling may cause trial courts to give more pause to ensure they explicitly address proportionality on the record, not just discuss the seriousness of a defendant’s conduct or criminal history.
In an approach that mirrors recent appellate decisions requiring strict procedural compliance, the Eighth District emphasized that proper statutory findings at sentencing are not merely technical formalities but constitutional protections that ensure meaningful appellate review.
As the appellate court stated: “Appellate courts are deferential to a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings,” but there must be findings to which the court can defer.
The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on how strictly trial courts must adhere to the three-part consecutive sentencing framework, but State v. Lewis makes clear that the Eighth District will enforce it. Ohio Court Watch will continue to monitor appellate decisions on consecutive sentencing to see if other districts follow suit.