The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. DOUSE, Appellant, 140 Ohio App. 3d 42

John T. Patton, Judge. Defendant-appellant John S.

Douse (“defendant”) appeals the sentence imposed on him by the trial court based on (1) the erroneous imposition of consecutive sentences, (2) the failure of the trial court to make the required findings before imposing consecutive sentences, and (3) “imposing a disproportionate, illegal and otherwise unjust sentence.” On July 9,1998, defendant was indicted for seven counts of rape with a sexually violent predator specification; seven counts of corruption of a minor; six counts of gross sexual imposition; twenty counts of illegal use of a minor in a nudity oriented performance; and four counts of voyeurism.

At the arraignment, defendant entered a plea of not guilty. On December 2, 1998, defendant pleaded guilty to the following: 1. Four counts of corruption of a minor (Counts 2, 9, 10, 20); 2. Three counts of illegal use of a minor in a nudity-oriented performance (Counts 21, 22, 23); and 3. Two counts of voyeurism (Counts 41, 42). Two months later, on January 28, 1999, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of seven years each on Counts 21, 22, and 23, to be served consecutively.

On Counts 41 and 42, defendant was sentenced to thirty days to be served consecutively; however, this part of the sentence was suspended. The trial court also imposed a community control sanction of five years with the following conditions: defendant to be placed under intensive special probation supervision; to be placed on home detention for one year; and to receive sexual offender counseling as determined by probation department. Last, the trial court stated any violations of the above conditions would result in the imposition of four consecutive seventeen-month prison terms on Counts 2, 9, 10, and 20.

The following day, on January 29, 1999, defendant filed a motion to correct his sentence. He argued that Counts 21-23 were allied offenses of similar import and thus the trial court should have merged them. The trial court did not rule on this motion.

Subsequently, on February 26, 1999, defendant timely filed his notice of appeal and now presents three assignments of error, the first of which states as follows: “Consecutive sentences were erroneously imposed by the sentencing court on three identically charged offenses which were allied offenses of similar import, pursuant to R.C. 2941.25, which precludes multiple sentences where said charges were not differentiated by the indictment, bill of particulars, or other findings of record.

As such, the sentences are contrary to law.” Defendant argues that Counts 21-23, illegal use of minor in a nudity-oriented performance, are allied offenses of similar import and should have been merged for sentencing purposes. He claims that the bill of particulars used the same statutory language and dates in describing the offenses and thus left the trial court without sufficient grounds to justify imposition of the consecutive sentences. Moreover, defendant argues that the record is silent relative to the time, place, and manner in which the photographs were taken.

Plus, there is no evidence detailing that the taking of the photographs was more than an uninterrupted sequence, constituting the commission of allied offenses of similar import committed with a single animus. As such, defendant maintains that Counts 21-23 were allied offenses of similar import, precluding the imposition of consecutive sentences. R.C. 2941.25 is the multiple counts statute and reads as follows: “(

A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one. “(

B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.” These two paragraphs of R.C. 2941.25 express the legislative intent that (1) multiple offense violations of the same statute do not constitute allied offenses of similar import and (2) a defendant may be sentenced on multiple violations of the same statute.

However, we cannot make a determination regarding whether defendant’s conduct constituted two or more separate offenses because a hearing on the matter was not held, in contravention of State v. Kent (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 151, 22 O.O.3d 223, 428 N.E.2d 453; State v. Latson (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 475, 728 N.E.2d 465; and State v. Stephens (June 10, 1993), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 62554, 62555 and 62556, unreported, 1993 WL 204614.

The state argues that the burden of establishing that a defendant is entitled to the protections of R.C. 2941.25 is the responsibility of the defendant, and, in the present case, defendant did not raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, defendant is precluded from raising this argument on appeal. The state is correct that defendant failed to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import at the sentencing hearing.

However, defendant did file a motion to correct his sentence the day following the sentencing hearing, thereby preserving this argument for appellate review. Based on the above analysis, we find that defendant timely preserved the allied offense issue. Because there was no evidence or testimony presented on the issue of allied offenses, we are unable to independently address this issue. Therefore, this assignment of error is sustained, and we remand this case for the sole purpose of holding a hearing to address defendant’s argument regarding allied offenses of similar import on Counts 21-23.

As for the second and third assignments of error, the state conceded at oral argument that these assignments of error must be remanded, as the court failed to make the required findings mandated by State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 715 N.E.2d 131. In light of our remand on the first assignment of error, the court should resentence accordingly after holding the hearing on allied offenses. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. O’Donnell, P.J., concurs. Michael J. Corrigan, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.