[Cite as State v. Parks, 2024-Ohio-1650.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

SAY'QUAN PARKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2023-T-0102

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2023 CR 00452

O P I N I O N

Decided: April 29, 2024

Judgment: Affirmed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 

44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Christopher P. Lacich, Roth Blair Roberts Strasfield & Lodge, 100 East Federal Street, 

Suite 600, Youngstown, OH 44503 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Say’Quan Parks, appeals the sentences imposed by the 

Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas on his convictions of two counts of Improperly 

Discharging a Firearm at or into a Habitation, second-degree felonies, with firearm 

specifications, five counts of Felonious Assault, second-degree felonies, with firearm 

specifications, and Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, a fourth-degree 

felony. For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶2} On August 3, 2024, the Trumbull County Grand Jury returned a ten-count 

indictment charging appellant with two counts of Improperly Discharging a Firearm at or 
2

Case No. 2023-T-0102

into a Habitation, second-degree felonies, with firearm specifications, in violation of R.C. 

2923.161(A)(1)&(C) and R.C. 2941.145 (Counts 1 and 7); seven counts of Felonious 

Assault, second-degree felonies, with firearm specifications, in violation of R.C. 

2903.11(A)(2) and (D)(1)(a) and R.C. 2941.145 (Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9); and 

Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of 

R.C. 2923.16(A) and (I) (Count 10).

1 Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges at 

arraignment. No bond was set. 

{¶3} On October 26, 2023, appellant appeared with counsel, waived his rights, 

and entered guilty pleas to two counts of Improperly Discharging a Firearm at or into a 

Habitation, second-degree felonies, with firearm specifications, five counts of Felonious 

Assault, second-degree felonies, with firearm specifications, and Improperly Handling 

Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, a fourth-degree felony, Counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 

{¶4} The State provided the following factual basis:

On or about [June 18, 2023] * * *, in Trumbull County and 

State of Ohio, this defendant did fire the 9-millimeter handgun 

indicated in the indictment at an unknown male in the parking 

lot of the Big Apple convenience store located in Warren City 

at least 23 times. In doing so, he struck a nearby white 2018 

Volkswagen Passat, almost striking a Raquel Mostella who 

was in that motor vehicle. 

The defendant also fired into 876 Kenilworth Avenue, where 

he struck the minor female victim, date of birth 12-20-2013, in 

the right forearm, causing extensive damage to the bones 

located in her forearm. 

He also narrowly missed a minor female, date of birth 9-13-

2019 , and a Misti Taylor * * * [in that residence].

1. On June 29, 2023, this case was bound over from the Warren Municipal Court in Case No, 2023 CRA 

001108. 
3

Case No. 2023-T-0102

He also fired into 877 Kenilworth Avenue, where he narrowly 

or nearly shot a JoAnne DeVerna, who was a resident of that 

residence. 

Many of these shots were also fired from or on a motor 

vehicle. 

{¶5} As a result of the plea, the State nolled Counts 4 and 5 of the indictment 

and appellant forfeited a Glock 19x, semiautomatic 9mm handgun, Serial No. BVHV497. 

A presentence investigation (“PSI”) was ordered and bond revoked.

{¶6} On December 5, 2023, appellant was sentenced to an aggregate minimum 

prison term of 25 1/2 years to a maximum of 29 1/2 years plus fines and costs.

Specifically, appellant was sentenced to a minimum of eight years to a maximum of 12 

years on Count 1, with an additional term of three years on the firearm specification to be 

served prior to and consecutively to the underlying sentence; a term of six years on Count 

7, to be served concurrently to all other counts, with an additional term of three years on

the firearm specification to be served prior to and consecutively to the underlying offense 

and all other Counts; a term of seven years on Count 2 to be served consecutively to all 

other counts, with an additional three-year prison term on the firearm specification to be 

served prior to and consecutively to the underlying offense and all other counts; a term of 

eight years on each count, Counts 3, 6, 8 and 9 to each count to be served concurrently 

to each other and all other counts and an additional three years on each attached firearm 

specification to be served concurrently to each other and all other counts; and a term of 

18 months on Count 10 to be served consecutively to all other counts. 

{¶7} Appellant timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error for 

review: “The trial court erred and imposed a sentence clearly and convincingly contrary 

to law, by issuing an indeterminate, consecutive sentence to Appellant in the aggregate 
4

Case No. 2023-T-0102

of a minimum of 25 and 1/2 years and a maximum of 29 and 1/2 years, plus fines and 

costs. (T.d. 14).” 

{¶8} Specifically, appellant argues in his brief that his sentence is excessive and 

unreasonable, “where apparently the fact that Appellant at 22 years of age had pled guilty, 

spared the State and victims of a trial, preserved judicial economy, and expressed sincere 

remorse at sentencing, was given little if any weight in the ultimate sentence he received.” 

{¶9} We review felony sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which 

provides:

The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise 

modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may 

vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing 

court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for 

review is not whether the sentencing court abused its 

discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized 

by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the 

following:

(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's 

findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division 

(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 

2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

{¶10} While R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) allows a reviewing court to modify or vacate a 

sentence, that ability is limited to certain specified statutory provisions. Findings made 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among those statutory provisions listed in 

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 

649, ¶ 28. “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) therefore does not provide a basis for an appellate 

court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported 
5

Case No. 2023-T-0102

by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Id. at ¶ 39. See also State v. Harvey, 11th

Dist. No. 2023-T-0046, 2024-Ohio-702, ¶ 8.

{¶11} Appellant argues that that “the appeal of a sentence such as his, in effect, 

[is] illusory: the Appellate Court having no power to intervene and fashion a more 

reasonable sentence . . .” Appellant’s brief at 7. This Court, as it is required to do, has 

followed the direction of the Supreme Court of Ohio: “’This court's holding today specifies 

what an appellate court may not do under this provision: it may not conduct an 

independent review of whether the record supports the sentence and substitute its own 

judgment regarding the appropriate sentence.’” Harvey, ¶ 9 quoting Jones, 163 Ohio 

St.3d 242, at ¶ 46. There is nothing in the record to suggest that appellant’s sentence is 

contrary to law. Each individual sentence is within the statutory guidelines.

{¶12} Because certain sentences were ordered or were required to be served 

consecutively, appellant asserts the aggregate sentence as excessive or unreasonable. 

There is a statutory presumption in favor of concurrent sentences. R.C. 2929.41(A). 

However, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides: 

If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for 

convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the 

offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court 

finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the 

public from future crime or to punish the offender and that 

consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the 

seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the 

offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of 

the following:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple 

offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, 

was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 
6

Case No. 2023-T-0102

2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under postrelease control for a prior offense.

(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as 

part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused 

by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so 

great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the 

offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct 

adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.

(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates 

that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the 

public from future crime by the offender.

{¶13} “In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is 

required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing 

and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to state 

reasons to support its findings.” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 

16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37. Additionally, “as long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial 

court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains

evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” Id. at ¶ 29. 

In other words, “‘if the court has properly made the required findings in order to impose 

consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we “clearly and 

convincingly” find “[t]hat the record does not support the court's findings[.]”’” State v. 

Haynes, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2022-L-009, 2022-Ohio-4464, ¶ 48, quoting State v. Venes, 

2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). See

State v. Passalacqua, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2023-L-013, 2023-Ohio-3525, ¶ 28.

{¶14} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:
7

Case No. 2023-T-0102

“[The] Court has considered the overriding principles and 

purposes of felony sentencing, and * * * has considered all 

relevant seriousness and recidivism factors. 

* * * 

[The] Court finds it is necessary to protect the public from 

future crime by the defendant; that consecutive sentences are 

not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s 

conduct, in permanently injuring a nine-year old girl; one or 

more of the offenses were committed while multiple other 

offenses were pending. Due to the conduct of the defendant 

in putting - - any time you put a gun in your hand and you want 

to take that and discharge it, you’ve got to accept 

responsibility for everything that happens from that.

* * *

So you have been multiple times in the criminal justice 

system, and you were warned many times, you’re forbidden 

from owning or possessing a gun, and you chose to pick one 

up anyway; correct?

* * *

Conduct of the defendant demonstrates that a single prison 

term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the 

conduct; defendant’s criminal history demonstrates 

consecutive sentences are necessary.

{¶15} These findings were incorporated in the sentencing entry. Specifically, the 

trial court “considered the record, oral statements, the pre-sentence investigation and any 

victim impact statements, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 

2929.11, and has balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12.” The 

trial court determined:

[T]hat consecutive service is necessary to protect the public 

from future crime and to punish the Defendant, and that 

consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the 

seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and to the danger the 

Defendant poses to the public. Further the Court finds the 

Defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that 

consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public 

from future crime by the offender and that no single prison 

term for any of the offenses committed adequately reflects the 

seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
8

Case No. 2023-T-0102

{¶16} Appellant was 22 years old at the time of sentencing. At the hearing, the 

trial court noted appellant’s prior criminal history beginning at age 17 which included 

charges for possession of drugs, criminal damaging, two convictions of domestic 

violence, assault, failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer, criminal 

trespassing, obstruction of official business, weapons under disability, and the underlying 

charges. 

{¶17} Upon review of the record in this case, the record supports the trial court’s 

determination. The individually imposed sentences were within the statutory guidelines, 

the trial court considered the statutory mandates, and imposed consecutive sentences. 

The trial court made the required findings to impose consecutive sentences. R.C.

2929.14(C)(4). Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit.

{¶18} Finding appellant’s assignment of error to be without merit, we affirm the 

judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.