[Cite as State v. Moss, 2015-Ohio-3466.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

CODY R. MOSS : Case No. 14-CA-52 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County 

 Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

 2013 CR 00576 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 24, 2015 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

GREGG MARX DAVID A. SAMS 

Fairfield Prosecuting Attorney Box 40 

 West Jefferson, OH 43162 

By: ANDREA GREEN 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

239 W. Main Street, Suite 101 

Lancaster, OH 43130 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-52 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant Cody R. Moss appeals a judgment of the Fairfield County 

Common Pleas Court convicting him of two counts of robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)) and 

sentencing him to five years incarceration on each count, to be served consecutively. 

Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} At 8:00 p.m. on January 9, 2013, appellant entered a Circle K store in 

Lancaster, Ohio. Appellant's face was covered by his clothing so that the clerk could 

only see his eyes. Appellant approached the clerk and moved his coat aside to display 

what she believed to be a black hand gun. He asked the clerk for all the money in the 

register. She gave the money to appellant, and he fled on foot, discarding his jacket. 

The clerk called 911 and explained that she had been robbed at gunpoint. She called 

the store manager and locked the doors to the store. The manager arrived to find the 

clerk crying and upset, and it took nearly thirty minutes for her to calm down enough to 

explain what had happened. 

{¶3} On January 11, 2013, appellant went into the Fairfield National Bank in 

Lancaster several times over the course of the afternoon. On his final visit to the bank, 

appellant, who was wearing dark-colored face paint, wrote a note on a checking deposit 

slip stating that he had a gun, and instructing the teller to empty her register. He 

handed the note to a teller, who gave appellant the money. Appellant fled on foot, 

discarding his jacket and a winter hat. 

{¶4} Police were able to match the discarded clothing to the clothing appellant 

was wearing on surveillance videos from the Circle K and the bank. Further, forensic 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-52 3 

scientists concluded that appellant's DNA was a match to the clothing found at both 

scenes. Appellant's roommate saw appellant putting on face paint on the day of the 

bank robbery, and appellant admitted to his roommate that he robbed a bank and a 

Circle K. 

{¶5} Appellant was indicted by the Fairfield County Grand Jury with two counts 

of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). The case proceeded to trial in the Fairfield 

County Common Pleas Court. Appellant was convicted as charged. The court 

sentenced appellant to five years incarceration on each count, to be served 

consecutively. Appellant assigns a single error to his sentence: 

{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE 

PRISON TERMS." 

{¶7} In Ohio, there is a statutory presumption in favor of concurrent sentences 

for most felony offenses. R.C. 2929.41(A). The trial court may overcome this 

presumption by making the statutory, enumerated findings set forth in R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4). State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014–Ohio–3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, 

¶ 23. 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 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-52 4 

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 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. 

{¶8} In Bonnell, supra, at syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that 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. Furthermore, the sentencing court is not required to recite “a word-for-word 

recitation of the language of the statute.” Id. at ¶ 29. “[A]s long as the reviewing court 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-52 5 

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. 

{¶9} In the instant case, the court stated in the sentencing entry that 

consecutive sentences were necessary pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) and (b). At 

the sentencing hearing, the court discussed the statutory requirements for consecutive 

sentencing and the findings required by Bonnell, supra. Sent. Tr. 19-20. The court 

made the following statement on the record in support of its decision to sentence 

appellant consecutively: 

 With regard to the concurrent/consecutive sentencing 

issue, the court finds that consecutive sentences are 

necessary to protect the public from future crime and to 

punish you and that consecutive sentences are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of your conduct and to 

the danger that you pose to the public. 

 And if the Court - The Court also finds that these two 

offenses were committed as part of several courses of 

conduct. They occurred on two separate days, two separate 

locations, two separate victims or sets of victims and that the 

harm caused by these two offenses was so great or unusual 

that no single prison term for the offenses - for any of the 

offenses committed as part of the course of conduct - 

adequately reflects the seriousness of your conduct. 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-52 6 

 In this case both of the victims were put in great fear 

by having even the threat of the firearm being used and Ms. 

Saunders, the Circle K clerk, the Court noticed during the 

trial that she was still visibly shaken not just being nervous 

about being in court, but she was upset about what had 

happened a year and a half earlier and there was still fear on 

her part. 

 The clerk from the Fairfield National Bank was also 

placed in fear and simply complied with the request because 

out of fear of what could happen. 

 And since we have the two separate victims, the two 

separate harms that were caused, the Court believes that 

consecutive sentences are necessary to adequately reflect 

the seriousness of your conduct and all of the other - meets 

all of the requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section 

2929.14. 

 And it also appears that although it was a 

misdemeanor offense - a misdemeanor traffic offense, that 

you were on community control at the time through municipal 

court at the time [sic] of these offenses. 

 And your attorney mentioned you had not had a prior 

felony record. That's accurate, but you have had starting in 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-52 7 

2011, a series of misdemeanor offenses, both criminal and 

traffic offenses." Sent. Tr. 21-22. 

{¶10} The trial court made all of the required findings to impose consecutive 

sentences. Appellant argues that the harm caused to the victims was no more than 

normally found in a robbery case and thus did not rise to the level of "great or unusual" 

harm as required by the statute. The court specifically noticed that the Circle K clerk 

was at the time of trial still visibly shaken and in fear because of the incident, beyond 

what was normal while testifying in court. The prosecutor represented to the court at 

the sentencing hearing that Ms. Saunders has changed shifts to avoid working at the 

time of day when the offense occurred. The court indicated that it reviewed a letter from 

the Vice President of the bank regarding the impact the crime had on the safety and 

security of the bank employees. The court considered appellant's argument concerning 

his lack of criminal history, but also noted that he was on community control at the time 

of the offenses and that his record reflected a series of misdemeanor offenses 

beginning in 2011. The court's findings regarding consecutive sentencing were 

supported by the record. 

 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-52 8 

{¶11} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Fairfield 

County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to appellant. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur.