[Cite as State v. Kipker, 2023-Ohio-679.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

LOGAN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-22-19

 v.

TERRANCE M. KIPKER, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-22-20

 v.

TERRANCE M. KIPKER, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-22-21

 v.

TERRANCE M. KIPKER, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-2-

Appeals from Logan County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court Nos. CR21 06 0167, CR22 03 0075 and CR22 02 0055

Appeal Dismissed in 8-22-19 and 

Judgments Affirmed in 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

Date of Decision: March 6, 2023

 

APPEARANCES:

William T. Cramer for Appellant

Sarah J. Warren for Appellee

ZIMMERMAN, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Terrance M. Kipker (“Kipker”), appeals the 

judgment entries of sentencing of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas. For 

the reasons set forth below, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

{¶2} On July 13, 2021, in case number CR21 06 0167 (hereinafter “2021

case”), Kipker was indicted by the Logan County Grand Jury on aggravated 

trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c), a third-degree 
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-3-

felony, together with a specification for forfeiture of money in a drug case under 

R.C. 2941.1417(A).

1

 On July 19, 2021, Kipker entered a not-guilty plea. 

{¶3} Then, Kipker was indicted on February 8, 2022, in case number CR22 

02 0055, on four criminal charges including Counts One and Three for felonious 

assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), both second-degree felonies 

and Counts Two and Four for domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), 

(D)(3), both fourth-degree felonies.

2

 On February 1, 2022, Kipker tendered notguilty pleas to all counts in the indictment. 

{¶4} Then, on March 8, 2022, Kipker was indicted by the Logan County

Grand Jury, in case number CR22 03 0075, for one count of permitting drug abuse 

in violation of R.C. 2925.13(B), (C)(3)(a), a fifth-degree felony.3 On March 11, 

2022, Kipker entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment. 

{¶5} On March 29, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, Kipker 

entered guilty pleas to the indictments in case numbers CR21 06 0167 and CR22 03 

0075. Further, the State dismissed Counts One, Two, and Three, in case number 

CR22 02 0055, and Kipker agreed to plead guilty to Count Four (i.e., domestic 

violence) as indicted. Per the plea agreement, the State agreed to stand silent at 

1 The offense was alleged to have occurred on or about June 15, 2021.

2 Count One was alleged to have occurred on or about August 1, 2020; Count Two on or about October 1, 

2020 through October 31, 2020; and Counts Three and Four on or about January 11, 2022. 

3 The offense was alleged to have occurred on or about June 14, 2021.
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-4-

sentencing. The trial court accepted Kipker’s guilty pleas and continued his case 

for sentencing.

{¶6} On May 2, 2022, the trial court proceeded to sentencing on all three

cases. The trial court sentenced Kipker to a 30-month prison term in case number 

CR21 06 0167. Next, the trial court sentenced Kipker, in case number CR22 02 

0055, to a 12-month prison term to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed 

in case number CR21 06 0167. Then, the trial court sentenced Kipker to a six-month 

prison term, in case number CR22 03 0075, to be served consecutively to the prison 

terms imposed in case numbers CR21 06 0167 and CR22 02 0055, for a total

aggregate prison term (in all cases) of 48 months. 

{¶7} Kipker filed timely notices of appeal in his 2021 and 2022 cases, which 

we have consolidated. Kipker raises one assignment of error for our review.

Appeal 8-22-19

{¶8} However, before we address the merits of Kipker’s appeals, we note

that Kipker (in his brief) does not present any arguments challenging the sentence

imposed in his 2021 case. Rather, his assignment of error only challenges the 

consecutive sentences imposed in his 2022 cases, which were run consecutively to 

his 2021 case. Since there are no issues raised or error assigned below in appellate

case number 8-22-19, that appeal is dismissed. See State v. Taylor, 3d Dist. Seneca 

Nos. 13-19-21 and 13-19-22, 2019-Ohio-4719, ¶ 8. Therefore, we will only 
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-5-

consider Kipker’s assignment of error as it pertains to his cases in appellate case 

numbers 8-22-20 and 8-22-21.

Appeals 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

Assignment of Error

By clear and convincing evidence, the record does not support the 

trial court’s consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4).

{¶9} In his assignment of error, Kipker argues that the trial court erred by 

imposing consecutive sentences. In particular, Kipker argues that the trial court’s 

determination in his 2022 cases is not supported by the record.

Standard of Review

{¶10} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence 

“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not 

support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is 

otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 

¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the 

trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id. 

at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the 

syllabus.
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-6-

Analysis

{¶11} Because Kipker committed multiple felony offenses, the presumption

isthat his prison terms must be served concurrently and not consecutively. See State 

v. Gwynne, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4607, ¶ 10, citing R.C. 2929.41(A). 

R.C. 2929.41(A) provides in its pertinent part, “[e]xcept as provided in * * * 

division (C) of section 2929.14, * * * a prison term, jail term, or sentence of 

imprisonment shall be served concurrently with any other prison term, jail term, or 

sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of this state, another state, or the 

United States.” R.C. 2929.41(A). See also Gwynne at ¶ 10, citing State v. Polus, 

145 Ohio St.3d 266, 2016-Ohio-655, ¶ 10 (“[t]he first sentence of R.C. 2929.41(A) 

enacts the general rule requiring concurrent sentencing with only clearly delineated 

exceptions”); and State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215, 2019-Ohio-3246, ¶ 21 

(“[t]he general principle set forth in the Revised Code is that concurrent sentences 

are the default and consecutive sentences are the exception”). R.C. 2929.14(C) 

states in its pertinent part that:

(4) * * * 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, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of 
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-7-

the Revised Code, or was under post-release 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.

See also Gwynne at ¶ 10, citing R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

{¶12} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a trial court to make specific findings on 

the record before imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Hites, 3d Dist. Hardin 

No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 11; State v. Peddicord, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-12-

24, 2013-Ohio-3398, ¶ 33. Specifically, the trial court must find: (1) consecutive 

sentences are necessary to either protect the public or punish the offender; (2) the 

sentences would not be disproportionate to the offense committed; and (3) one of 

the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) applies. Id.; Id. Further, the trial 

court must state the required findings at the sentencing hearing prior to imposing 

consecutive sentences and incorporate those findings into its sentencing entry. State 

v. Sharp, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01, 2014-Ohio-4140, ¶ 50, citing State v. 

Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. However, a trial court “has no 

obligation to state reasons to support its findings.” Bonnell at ¶ 37.
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-8-

{¶13} Here, at Kipker’s sentencing hearing, the trial court found that 

“consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to 

punish [Kipker]”. (May 2, 2022 Tr. at 16). Further, the trial court found that 

“consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of [Kipker’s]

conduct and to the danger that [he] poses to the public.” (Id.). 

{¶14} Regarding the factors under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c), the trial court 

found that “[Kipker] was awaiting trial in Case Number CR21-06-0167 at the time 

he committed the offenses of CR22-03-0075 and CR22-02-0055”; that “at least two 

of the multiple offenses were committed as a single course of conduct and the harm 

caused by the multiple offenses was so great that no single prison term for any of 

the offenses committed adequately reflects the seriousness of [Kipker’s] conduct”; 

and that “[Kipker’s] history of criminal conduct demonstrates consecutive sentences 

are necessary to protect the public from future crime by [Kipker]”. (May 2, 2022 

Tr. at 16-17). See R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). Importantly, the trial court 

memorialized these findings in its sentencing entry by reciting the language of R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). (See Case No. CR22 03 0075, Doc. No. 30). (See also Case 

No. CR22 02 0055, Doc. No. 38).

{¶15} Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court 

made the statutorily required findings before imposing consecutive sentences at 
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-9-

Kipker’s sentencing hearing and incorporated those findings into its sentencing 

entry. 

{¶16} Nevertheless, even though Kipker frames his argument as a 

consecutive-sentence challenge, he is truly attacking the trial court’s consideration 

of the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 

2929.12. Specifically, he argues the trial court should have addressed his substanceabuse-addiction issues, which he stated, “would be more useful to [Kipker] than a 

lengthy prison term”. However, in Gwynne, the Supreme Court of Ohio “clarified 

that R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 do not apply to consecutive-sentencing review.” 

State v. Cochran, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-21-19, 2022-Ohio-885, ¶ 17, citing State v. 

Hiles, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-20-21, 2021-Ohio-1622, ¶ 18, citing State v. Gwynne, 

158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, ¶ 17. Consequently, we will not review 

Kipker’s consecutive sentences for compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 

2929.12. Id. 

{¶17} Because Kipker has not presented any other argument challenging his 

consecutive sentences, we conclude that his consecutive sentences are not clearly 

and convincingly unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law. Id.

{¶18} Accordingly, Kipker’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

{¶19} For the reasons stated above, we dismiss appellant’s appeal related to

appellate case number 8-22-19, and having found no error prejudicial to the 
Case Nos. 8-22-19, 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

-10-

appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued in appellate case numbers 8-

22-20 and 8-22-21, affirm the judgments of the trial court in appellate case numbers 

8-22-20 and 8-22-21.

Appeal Dismissed in 8-22-19;

Judgments Affirmed in 8-22-20 and 8-22-21

MILLER, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.

/jlr