Several lower state courts have found that the absence of a stated mens rea, and the further absence of any indication that the state legislature intended to impose strict liability under this section, leads to the conclusion that the necessary mens rea for § 2921.331(A) is recklessness. State v. Malcolm, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 5014, ¶ 38 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. Oct. 17, 2003) (finding "reckless" as proper mens rea for Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.331(A); State v. Odorizzi, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1209 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. Mar. 14, 2001) (same); State v. Brewer, 96 Ohio App. 3d 413, 415-16 (Ohio Ct. App. 2nd Dist. 1994) (same)). But see State v. Newsom, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 2934 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. June 16, 2003) (questioning whether § 2921.331(A) requires a finding of recklessness); State v. Walton, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 429 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. Feb. 11, 2000) (same).
See also State v. White, 18 Ohio St.3d 340, 481 N.E.2d 596 (1985) (reversing a sentencing order that directed a sentence to run consecutively to a sentence that had not yet been imposed). But see State v. Malcolm, 2003 Ohio 5629, ¶¶ 17-24 (Ct.App.) (treating a suspended sentence as being a sentence previously imposed and subsequently affirming a trial court order imposing a sentence consecutive to another sentence yet to be reimposed). The DeChenne court reasoned that "[t]he principal requirement in imposing a consecutive sentence is that there be a sufficiently definite event for commencement of the consecutive sentence in order that the Corrections Division may implement that sentence."Id.