[Cite as State v. Cannon , 2021-Ohio-4620.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-21-1083 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202001555

v. Patrick Cannon DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: December 29, 2021 * * * * * Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant. * * * * * OSOWIK, J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced appellant, Patrick J. Cannon, to a total prison term of 31 years for two counts of rape of a minor and two counts of gross sexual im position of a minor after2. the trial court accepted appellant’s guilty pleas and convicted him of those offenses. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court. I. Background {¶ 2} On March 9, 2021, appellant entered guilty pleas to two counts of forcible rape, violations of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and first-degree felonie s pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(B), and to two counts of gross sexual imposition of a m inor, violations of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and third-degree felonies pursuant to R.C. 2907.0 5(C)(2). The trial court accepted the pleas and found appellant guilty of those offenses : that between April 1 and August 20, 2019, appellant had four instances of oral sex, anal sex and genitalia fondling with his six-year-old son. On April 1, 2021, the trial court s entenced appellant to serve 11 mandatory years in prison for each first-degree felony and t o serve 54 non-mandatory months for each third-degree felony. The sentences are to be s erved consecutively to each other. {¶ 3} Appellant timely appealed the trial court judgment and set fort h two assignments of error: I. The trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced ap pellant to four consecutive prison terms when appellant has no prior crimi nal history, two of the offenses were felonies for the third degree for whic h incarceration is not mandatory, and the sentence arguably does not promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender pursuant to R.C. 2 929.11.3. II. It was plain error for the trial court to impose sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law because its provisions are unconstitutional nu llities.
II. Consecutive Sentences {¶ 4} In support of his first assignment of error, appellant argues h is four consecutive prison terms violate R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. In particular, appellant argues his non-mandatory prison terms for his third-degree felo nies should be served concurrently, not consecutively, to his mandatory first-degree felony prison terms. Appellant argues the trial court failed to properly apply the f actors and purposes of felony sentencing stated in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 because of his la ck of a criminal history and his demonstrated remorse. Appellant urges this court to fi nd that the consecutive sentences imposed for the third-degree felonies “are gratuitous ” and do not offer him opportunity for rehabilitation. Appellant argues the trial cou rt erroneously calculated his maximum prison term as 36.5 years, rather than 42 years. Furth er, appellant argues the additional, non-mandatory 54 months for each third-degree felon y will not protect the public after he has already served 22 mandatory years for both of the first-degree felonies. {¶ 5} In response, appellee argues the trial court did not err becaus e the record supports its findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). In addit ion, appellee argues that pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(F)(3)(b), a mandatory prison term is r equired for gross sexual imposition where the victim is under 13-years old, the offense occurred on or after4. August 3, 2005, and where there is admissible evidence other th an the victim’s testimony (in this case appellant admitted to committing the offenses). Finally, appellee argues that consecutive sentencing of the first-degree felonies is mandated by R.C. 2929.144(B)(2), and the trial court correctly calculated 31 years minimum for t he four offenses, plus onehalf of 11 years (the longest minimum term of the most serious felony) or 36.5 years for the maximum. {¶ 6} To the extent that appellant challenges the overall length of h is 31-year consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, those sta tutes do not apply to consecutive-sentencing review. State v. Mockensturm , 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-007, 2021-Ohio-881, ¶ 15, citing State v. Gwynn , 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169, ¶ 17. Our review of consecutive sentences is limit ed to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), as stated in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Id. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) states, in part, “The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds * * *: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under * * * [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)] * * *.” {¶ 7} When sentencing prison terms, the trial court is required “to a dhere to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and 2929.41(A) in imposing consecutive sentences and to make the required findings.” State v. Bonnell , 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 35. R.C. 2929.41(A) states a presumption for concurrent sentencing, except as provided for in R.C. 2929.14(C). The trial court is required t o make the findings5. mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) both at the sentencing hearing a nd incorporate them into its sentencing entry, “but it has no obligation to state r easons to support its findings. Nor is it required to give a talismanic incantation of the word s of the statute, provided that the necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated into the sentencing entry.” Id. at ¶ 37. {¶ 8} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) requires a three-step analysis by the tri al court: (1) finding that the sentence is necessary to protect the public fr om future crime or to punish the offender; (2) finding that consecutive sentences are not di sproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the off ender poses to the public; and (3) finding the offender’s history of criminal conduct demo nstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. State v.
Banks , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1095, 2014-Ohio-1000, ¶ 11. {¶ 9} The April 1, 2021 sentencing hearing transcript is in the recor d, along with the trial court’s April 6 journalized sentencing entry. The re cord shows the trial court’s sentence was supported by the trial court’s review of the prese ntence investigation report, the record, oral statements, and any victim impact statements, along with the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balancing the seriousness, recidivism and other relevant factors under R.C. 2929.12. The trial court found that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the defendant, and are not disproportionate to the seriousness of t he defendant’s conduct or6. the danger the defendant poses. Specifically, the trial court found appellant’s conduct was “more serious than conduct normally constituting these offe nses” after considering the physical and mental injuries the 6-year-old victim suffered , and will continue to suffer, because of his father, the appellant. The trial court articulated that “[t]he kind of depravity you perpetrated against your own biological child is the worst of its kind, which makes you the worst of your kind.” By finding that appel lant victimized his own child, and destroyed the lives of his entire family, to satiate his own putrid desires, “you pose a bigger threat to the safety of our community than any mu rderer this court has ever sentenced.” As a result, the trial court determined the offens es committed by the defendant were part of one or more courses of conduct and cause d harm so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses adeq uately reflects the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct. {¶ 10} To the extent appellant urges this court to modify or vacate hi s sentence based on our independent review that the sentence is not suppor ted by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we lack the authority to grant the re lief appellant seeks.
Mockensturm , 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-007, 2021-Ohio-881, at ¶ 16, citing State v.
Jones , 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42. {¶ 11} We reviewed the record and find clear and convincing evidence s upporting the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.1 4(C)(4)(c). Both the7. sentencing hearing transcript and the subsequent judgment entri es reflect the trial court engaged in the required analysis. III. Reagan Tokes Law {¶ 12} In support of his second assignment of error, appellant acknowl edges that the issue of the constitutionality of indefinite sentences unde r the Reagan Tokes statute is currently unresolved in our district and the certified question is currently pending before the Ohio Supreme Court, citing State v. Maddox , 6th Dist. Lucas No. CL-19-1253, 2020- Ohio-4702, ¶ 14, motion to certify allowed, 160 Ohio St.3d 1505, 2020-Ohio-6913, 159 N.E.3d 1150. Appellant concedes that the he must serve a minim um of 22 years for his two, first-degree felony convictions, and only after that perio d of time will the “indefinite part” potentially occur. Appellant seeks to preserve “the righ t to object to the imposition of indefinite sentences in the future.” {¶ 13} In response, appellee argues appellant’s argument fails for two reasons: first, for failing to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7), and second, for lack of ripeness for review on appeal. {¶ 14} We recently determined an essentially identical assignment of e rror in State v. White , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1081, 2021-Ohio-______, where we hel d: “Under App.R. 12(A)(1)(b), an appellate court must determine an appeal based on the assignments of error set forth in the brief. ” State v. Willis, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-16-048, 2017-Ohio-8924, ¶ 26, citing State8. v. Roberson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-16-1131, 2017-Ohio-4339, ¶ 103 (emphasis added). “An appellate court rules on assignments of e rror only[.]” Id. App.R. 16(A)(3) requires appellants to include in their briefs “[a] statement of the assignments of error presented for review , with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflec ted.” Additionally, App.R. 16(A)(7) requires appellant to provide “[a ]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to eac h assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the r ecord on which appellant relies.” Appellant’s request that this court recogniz e his reservation of a future right to appeal his sentence does not s atisfy any of the requirements of App.R. 16(A)(3) and (7). Put simply, it is not an assignment of error.
Id. at ¶ 12. {¶ 15} We find that appellant failed to support his purported second a ssignment of error. Pursuant to App.R.12(A)(2), we “may disregard an assign ment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the rec ord the error on which the assignment of error is based * * * as required by App.R.16(A).” Id. at ¶ 13. {¶ 16} Appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.9. IV. Conclusion {¶ 17} On consideration whereof, we find that substantial justice has been done in this matter. The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant t o App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pu rsuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. Thomas J. Osowik, J. _________________________ ___ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J.

____________________________ Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

____________________________ JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.