Background
Anthony Brown pleaded guilty to two third-degree felony counts of having weapons while under disability, each carrying a one-year firearm specification, along with discharge-of-a-firearm and receiving-stolen-property charges. The two weapons-under-disability counts arose from different dates: December 31, 2024, and January 7, 2025.
The parties had contemplated consecutive firearm-specification terms, but the trial court imposed the two one-year specification terms concurrently. With a consecutive nine-month term for an underlying weapons-under-disability offense, Brown received a total prison sentence of one year and nine months. The State appealed, arguing that concurrent specification terms were unauthorized.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District held that the concurrent firearm-specification sentences were contrary to law. Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a), firearm-specification prison terms generally must run consecutively to other prison terms and to other mandatory firearm-specification terms.
The exception for offenses committed as part of the same act or transaction did not apply. The counts occurred on different days and involved different firearms: one purchased by Brown’s girlfriend and never recovered, and a separate stolen handgun found during a search warrant. The State could challenge the unlawful sentence directly under R.C. 2953.08(B)(2) despite not objecting at sentencing, so the court did not reach plain error.
Key Takeaways
- Separate firearm specifications must run consecutively unless the underlying offenses were part of the same act or transaction.
- Different dates and different firearms supported finding separate transactions.
- The State may directly appeal a sentence that omits a mandatory statutory sentencing requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Ohio trial courts cannot depart from mandatory firearm-specification sentencing rules based on mitigation or a recommended sentencing range. A sentence that fails to impose a required consecutive term is subject to correction on the State’s direct appeal.
The court vacated only the sentence on Counts 1 and 4 and remanded solely for resentencing on the firearm specifications in accordance with law.