[Cite as State v. Adams, 2016-Ohio-893.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

VS. 

JEREMY ADAMS 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 15 MA 0008 

OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Court of Common 

Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio 

Case No. 12 CR 863 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee Attorney Paul Gains 

Mahoning County Prosecutor 

Attorney Ralph Rivera 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Defendant-Appellant Attorney Joseph Messuri 

23 Lisbon Street, Suite K 

Canfield, Ohio 44406 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

 

 

 Dated: March 4, 2016 
[Cite as State v. Adams, 2016-Ohio-893.]

DeGENARO, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jeremy Adams appeals the judgment of the 

Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, finding that Adams had violated the terms 

of his community control sanction and sentencing him accordingly. On appeal, 

Adams argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. The trial 

court made the required findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and there is 

evidence in the record supporting those findings. And contrary to Adams' 

contentions, the trial court was not required to provide reasons in support of its 

findings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

{¶2} In 2012, Adams was indicted on one count of breaking and entering, 

R.C. 2911.13(A) and (C), and one count of theft, R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(1)-(2), 

both fifth-degree felonies as a result of breaking into a garage and stealing tools and 

aluminum siding. Adams entered into a Crim.R. 11 plea agreement in which he pled 

guilty to the charges in the indictment and in exchange the State agreed to 

recommend a term of community control and restitution. The trial court accepted 

Adams' plea and later sentenced him to a jointly recommended three-year period of 

community control along with $250.00 in restitution. 

{¶3} On January 14, 2014, Adams stipulated to violating his community 

control sanction. The trial court sentenced Adams to a 90-day jail term and ordered 

Adams to complete in-house treatment at the Community Corrections Association 

upon his release from jail. Approximately one year later, Adams stipulated to a 

second violation of his community control sanction. He had absconded from the CCA 

facility soon before he was to finish the treatment program. Following a hearing, the 

trial court sentenced Adams to nine months on the breaking and entering conviction 

and nine months on the theft conviction to be served consecutively. He was granted 

241 days of jail-time credit. In addition, the trial court imposed a 3 year discretionary 

term of post-release control. 

{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Adams asserts: 

The trial court abused its discretion when sentencing the DefendantAppellant to consecutive terms of incarceration for a probation violation. 
- 2 - 

{¶5} This Court is currently split as to the standard of review to apply in 

felony sentencing cases. See State v. Hill, 7th Dist. No. 13 MA 1, 2014–Ohio–919, 

which applied the two-part test set forth in the plurality opinion in State v. Kalish, 120 

Ohio St.3d 23, 2008–Ohio–4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, and State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. 

No. 14 MA 115, 2015–Ohio–1359, which applied R.C. 2953.08(G) and limiting 

appellate review of felony sentences to determining whether they are clearly and 

convincingly contrary to law. The issue is currently before the Ohio Supreme Court. 

State v. Marcum, 141 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2015–Ohio–239, 23 N.E.3d 1453. 

Regardless of which standard of review is applied here, the outcome is the same. 

{¶6} Based on R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court is required to make three 

findings before imposing consecutive sentences: 1) consecutive sentences are 

necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the defendant; 2) 

consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant's 

conduct and the danger the defendant poses to the public; and 3) one of three 

alternative findings set out in subsections, namely that: a) the defendant was under 

post-release control, specified statutory community control, or awaiting trial or 

sentencing; b) the offenses were committed during a course of conduct and the harm 

was so great/unusual that a single term does not reflect the seriousness of the 

defendant's conduct; or c) the defendant's criminal history demonstrates the need to 

protect the public from future crime by the defendant. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 

{¶7} Recently, in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014–Ohio–3177, 16 

N.E.3d 659, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the findings supporting consecutive 

sentences must be made both at the sentencing hearing and in the entry. Bonnell at 

¶ 37. However, a trial court need not state reasons to support its findings nor is it 

required to use any "magic" or "talismanic" words, so long as it is apparent that the 

court conducted the proper analysis. State v. Jones, 7th Dist. No. 13 MA 101, 2014-

Ohio-2248, ¶ 6; see also Bonnell at ¶37. Post-Bonnell, we may liberally review the 

entirety of the sentencing transcript to discern whether the trial court made the 

requisite findings. Bonnell at ¶29. However, as demonstrated by the outcome in 
- 3 - 

Bonnell—the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Bonnell's sentence because 

the trial court failed to make a proportionality finding—there are limits to that 

deference. Bonnell at ¶ 33-34. After a reviewing court determines the findings have 

been made, the court "must also determine whether the record contains evidence in 

support of the trial court's findings." State v. Correa, 7th Dist. 13 MA 23, 2015-Ohio3955, ¶ 76, citing Bonnell at ¶29. 

{¶8} Here, the trial court made the following findings with regard to the 

imposition of consecutive sentences during the hearing: 

THE COURT: * * * I do so find that consecutive terms are 

necessary to protect the public and to punish the offender. They're not 

disproportionate to the harm that was caused. 

The Court finds that this was a probation violation; so the 

Defendant was under a sanction. His criminal history shows that 

consecutive terms are needed to protect the public, and because he 

was on a court-ordered vacation at the CCA as opposed to being the 

penitentiary, the harm as viewed by this Court indicates that a single 

term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offender's 

conduct. The Court further notes that it's less than the time that I 

promised him if he violated.1 So those are the reasons that I'm 

imposing a consecutive sentence. 

{¶9} The trial court stated the following in its sentencing entry: 

Pursuant to O.R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the Court finds that 

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 

 

1 Earlier during the hearing the trial court noted to Adams that it had told him when imposing the 

probation that he would impose a two-year sentence if the terms were violated; however, Adams was 

sentenced to 18 months. 
- 4 - 

danger the offender poses to the public. Pursuant to O.R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4)(c), the Court further finds that the offender's history of 

criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are 

necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. 

Therefore, the sentences imposed on the charges in Breaking and 

Entering in Count One and Theft in Count Two are Ordered to be 

served consecutively to one another in the Department of 

Rehabilitations and Corrections. 

{¶10} Adams argues that the trial court failed to give a reasonable explanation 

for the imposition of consecutive sentences. However, the sentencing court "has no 

obligation to state reasons to support its findings." Bonnell at ¶37. The findings made 

by the trial court comport with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the record contains evidence 

in support of those findings. Adams was under a community control sanction and 

failed to respond favorably to sanctions, not once, but twice. The second time, he 

absconded from the CCA facility soon before he was to finish the treatment program. 

Accordingly, Adams' sole assignment of error is meritless, and the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed. 

Donofrio, P. J., concurs. 

Waite, J., concurs.