[Cite as State v. Hatfield, 2016-Ohio-2888.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsBRIAN T. HATFIELD 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. CT2015-0051 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Muskingum 

County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

CR2014-0182 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 4, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

SCOTT LONGO DAVID SAMS 

150 E. Gay Street -23rd Fl. Box 40 

Columbus, OH 43215 West Jefferson, OH 43162 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 2 

Gwin, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Brian T. Hatfield [“Hatfield”] appeals from the August 31, 2015 

Judgment Entry of Prison Sentence of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. 

Appellee is the state of Ohio. 

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} A statement of the facts underlying Hatfield’s criminal conviction is not 

necessary to our resolution of this appeal. 

{¶3} On June 12, 2014, Hatfield was indicted on a six-count indictment for Count 

1-Engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C. 

2923.32(A)(1); Count 2 - Money Laundering, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of 

R.C. 1315.55(A)(1); Count 3 -Theft, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 

2913.02(A)(1); Count 4 –Theft, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 

2913.02(A)(1); Count 5 –Theft, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 

2913.02(A)(1); and Count 6 – Theft, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 

2913.02(A)(1). 

{¶4} On November 3, 2014, Hatfield entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Count 

2 – Money Laundering; Count 4 –Theft; and Count 6 – Theft. The remaining counts were 

dismissed by the state in exchange for Hatfield’s pleas. Because Hatfield had left the 

County while on bond, he was held without bond while a pre-sentence investigation report 

was prepared. On November 17, 2014, Hatfield was sentenced to 30 months for his guilty 

plea to Count 2 - Money Laundering, 12 months for his guilty pleas to Count 4 – Theft 

and 36 months for his guilty plea to Count 6 – Theft. The trial court ordered the sentences 

to be served consecutively. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 3 

{¶5} Hatfield challenged the imposition of the consecutive terms on the ground 

that the trial court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. 

Hatfield, Fifth District Muskingum No. CT2014-CA-00052, 2015-Ohio-2846 [“Hatfield I”]. 

We agreed, vacated the sentence and remanded the case to the trial court. Id. 

{¶6} Upon remand, the trial court again ordered consecutive terms. 

Assignment of Error 

{¶7} Hatfield raises one assignment of error, 

{¶8} “I. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS RE-SENTENCED TO 

CONSECUTIVE PRISON TERMS CONTRARY TO R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” 

Analysis 

{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Hatfield challenges the imposition of the 

consecutive terms on the ground that the trial court failed to make the findings required 

by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Specifically, Hatfield contends it is not possible to say that the 

harm caused by all of the offenses to which he entered a negotiated plea of guilty was 

either so great or unusual that a single term will not suffice. Hatfield argues that the harm 

caused here is not so great or unusual because it is within the monetary range provided 

for an F-3 theft under R.C. 2913.02(B)(2). 

{¶10} The two-step approach set forth in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-

Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 no longer applies to appellate review of felony sentences. 

We now review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08. 

State v. Marcum, __Ohio St.3d__, 2016–Ohio–1002, __N.E.3d ___, ¶22; State v. Howell, 

5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00004, 2015-Ohio-4049, ¶31. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides 

we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 4 

resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not 

support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or 

(C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. See, also, State v. 

Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014–Ohio–3177, 16 N.E.2d 659, ¶28. 

{¶11} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the 

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

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118(1954), paragraph three of the 

syllabus. See also, In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985). 

“Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a 

reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had 

sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” Cross, 161 Ohio St. 

at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. 

{¶12} 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. This statute 

requires the trial court to undertake a three-part analysis. State v. Alexander, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton Nos. C–110828 and C–110829, 2012-Ohio-3349, 2012 WL 3055158, ¶ 15. 

{¶13} 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 **665 the 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 5 

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 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. 

{¶14} Thus, in order for a trial court to impose consecutive sentences the court 

must find that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime 

or to punish the offender. The court must also find that consecutive sentences are not 

disproportionate to the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the 

public. Finally, the court must make at least one of three additional findings, which include 

that (a) the offender committed one or more of the offenses while awaiting trial or 

sentencing, while under a sanction imposed under R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18, or 

while under post release control for a prior offense; (b) at least two of the multiple offenses 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 6 

were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two 

or more of the offenses 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 would adequately reflect the 

seriousness of the offender’s conduct; or (c) the offender’s criminal history demonstrates 

that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the 

offender. See, State v. White, 5th Dist. Perry No. 12-CA-00018, 2013-Ohio-2058, ¶36. 

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

N.E.2d 659, syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated 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. 

{¶16} Furthermore, the sentencing court is not required to recite “a word-for-word 

recitation of the language of the statute.” Bonnell, ¶29. “[A]s 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. A failure to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) renders a 

consecutive sentence contrary to law. Bonnell, ¶34. The findings required by R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4) must be made at the sentencing hearing and included in the sentencing 

entry. Id. at the syllabus. However, a trial court’s inadvertent failure to incorporate the 

statutory findings in the sentencing entry after properly making those findings at the 

sentencing hearing does not render the sentence contrary to law; rather, such a clerical 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 7 

mistake may be corrected by the court through a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect what 

actually occurred in open court. Bonnell, ¶30. 

{¶17} In this case, the record does support a conclusion that the trial court made 

all of the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the time it imposed consecutive 

sentences. 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4): [T]he 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. 

{¶18} In the case at bar, the trial court found, 

The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect 

the public from future crime and to punish the offender, you, here. The 

Court also finds that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to your 

conduct and to the danger you pose to the public. 

 T. Aug. 31, 2015 at 16.

{¶19} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(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. 

{¶20} In the case at bar, the parties agree that Hatfield did not commit the crimes 

while he was awaiting trial or sentencing, or while Hatfield was under a sanction imposed 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 8 

pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under 

post-release control for a prior offense. 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(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. 

{¶21} In the case at bar, the trial court noted, 

You did these actions over periods of time. Correct? 

THE DEFENDANT Yes. 

THE COURT: And you just kept -- it wasn't one event. You kept 

doing this. You understand that? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

THE COURT: You stole multiple times. Would that be accurate? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: The Court finds that at least two of these multiple 

offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct and the 

harm caused by two or more of the offenses 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 would adequately reflect the seriousness of your 

conduct. Do you have any questions about that? 

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. 

{¶22} The trial court further found, 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 9 

THE COURT: You know the money laundering that was involved. 

And what I still don't believe is I don't think you have any idea the harm you 

did to your community. That -- it was -- Harrison Township is a tight-knit, 

close community. 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Most people know most everyone in the community. 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Most people have lived there quite a while. People 

did give up -- give their lives to that township, to the EMS. And you were in 

a position of trust that you violated horribly. And you violated it in such a 

way that you even pointed the finger away from you knowing that you were 

guilty, toward two very innocent people who were committed to that 

organization. The selfishness that you exhibited by your criminal behavior 

here is extreme. And based upon that, the following will be your sentence. 

T. Aug. 31, 2015 at 15-16. 

{¶23} As the Supreme Court concluded in Bonnell, 

 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. Nor is it required 

to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute, provided that the 

necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated into the 

sentencing entry. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0051 10 

140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶37. 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c): The offender’s history of criminal conduct 

demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from 

future crime by the offender. 

{¶24} As noted above, the trial court made this finding on the record. 

{¶25} The fact that Hatfield’s crimes do not involve a monetary loss in excess of 

“the upper end of an F-3 theft under R.C. 2913.02(B)(2)” is not a controlling factor. The 

trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before it imposed 

consecutive sentences. Bonnell, ¶28. We find that the record in the case at bar clearly 

and convincingly supports the trial court’s findings under 2929.14(C)(4). 

{¶26} Hatfield’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶27} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is 

affirmed. 

By Gwin, J., 

Farmer, P.J., 

Wise, J., concur