[Cite as State v. Amey, 2016-Ohio-1121.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 Nos. 103000 and 103001 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

DANNY AMEY

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-14-583339-A and CR-14-591492-A 

BEFORE: Kilbane, P.J., Stewart, J., and Boyle, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 17, 2016 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

John T. Martin 

Assistant Public Defender 

310 Lakeside Avenue 

Suite 200 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Zachary Humphrey 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.: 

{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, defendant-appellant, Danny Amey (“Amey”), 

appeals from the consecutive sentences imposed upon his guilty pleas, in two separate cases, to 

two counts of attempted domestic violence and one count of attempted receiving stolen property. 

 Having reviewed the record and the controlling case law, we affirm. 

{¶2} On March 25, 2014, Amey was indicted in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-583339-A 

on two counts of third-degree felony domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), in 

connection with an alleged attack upon J.J., a household member. On December 23, 2014, 

Amey was indicted in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-591492-A on one count of third-degree 

felony grand theft of a firearm, in violation of R.C. 2913.02, and two counts of having a weapon 

while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (3). 

{¶3} On March 4, 2015, Amey and the state entered into a plea agreement in both 

cases. In CR-14-583339-A, Amey pled guilty to two counts of fifth-degree felony attempted 

domestic violence. In CR-14-591492-A, Amey pled guilty to one count of attempted receiving 

stolen property, which had been amended to delete the reference to a firearm, and the remaining 

charges were dismissed. 

{¶4} The trial court obtained a presentence report in the matter, and a sentencing 

hearing was held in both matters on April 9, 2015. The trial court noted that Amey was on 

postrelease control at the time of the offenses, and it terminated the postrelease control sanction 

and imposed a one-year term of incarceration for that violation. Consecutive to that term, the 

court then imposed two concurrent 12-month terms in CR-14-583339-A, and imposed an 

additional consecutive 12-month term in CR-14-591492-A. 

{¶5} Amey now appeals and assigns the following error for our review: 
Assignment of Error 

The trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences without making the 

necessary findings. 

{¶6} Within this sole assignment of error, Amey asserts that the trial court erred in 

imposing consecutive sentences in CR-14-583339-A and CR-14-591492-A. 

{¶7} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), in reviewing felony sentences, the reviewing 

court must determine whether it “clearly and convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not 

support the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)],” or that (2) “the sentence is 

otherwise contrary to law.” The reviewing court may then “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify 

a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for 

re-sentencing.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). See State v. McCray, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102852, 

2015-Ohio-4689, ¶ 11; State v. Hammond, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100656, 2014-Ohio-4673, 

¶ 7. 

{¶8} In accordance with R.C. 2929.14, a trial court may impose consecutive sentences 

if the court finds that (1) a consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future 

crime or to punish the offender and (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the 

seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). In addition to these two factors, the court must find 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. 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). 

{¶9} Compliance with this statute “requires separate and distinct findings in addition to 

any findings relating to purposes and goals of criminal sentencing.” State v. Jones, 93 Ohio 

St.3d 391, 399, 2001-Ohio -341, 754 N.E.2d 1252. According to the Ohio Supreme Court, 

however, “a word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute is not required, and as 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.” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29. 

{¶10} In addition, the trial court must both (1) make the statutory findings mandated for 

consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and (2) incorporate 

those findings into its sentencing entry. Id. at syllabus. The Ohio Supreme Court has also 

recognized that “findings” in this context “means only that ‘the [trial] court must note that it 

engaged in the analysis’ and that it ‘has considered the statutory criteria and specifie[d] which of 

the given bases warrants its decision.’” Id. at ¶ 26, quoting State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 

324, 326, 1999-Ohio-110, 715 N.E.2d 131. 

{¶11} In the instant case, the trial court noted that Amey, who was 29, was on probation 

in a prior case for first-degree misdemeanor domestic violence. The court then outlined all of 

Amey’s prior offenses, which included various juvenile delinquency adjudications from 2000 to 

2004. In 2005, he was convicted of receiving stolen property and served one year of community 

control. He violated the terms of the community control sanction later that year and served six 
months of incarceration for that and fourth- and fifth-degree felony drug cases. In 2006, Amey 

was convicted of giving false information to a court and receiving stolen property and served an 

additional six months in jail. In January 2007, he was sentenced to four years of imprisonment 

for second-degree felony burglary, but was granted judicial release and ordered to serve four 

years of community control. Several months later, a capias was issued for Amey. By October 

2010, he was found to be in violation of his community control sanctions and was sentenced to 

six months of imprisonment on a drug charge. Also in 2010, he was convicted of domestic 

violence in the Cleveland Municipal Court, and in another incident, he was convicted of 

attempted felonious assault, a felony of the third degree, for which he served two years of 

imprisonment. Upon his release, he was convicted of misdemeanor drug abuse. In 2013, he 

was convicted of aggravated menacing and domestic violence. 

{¶12} The court then stated: 

Despite the prison history, despite the failed judicial recess, I gave you probation. 

I gave you a chance, Mr. Amey, to show me that you could do this right, and 

unfortunately, and we’ll get to that in a moment, that hasn’t worked out, has it. 

You also had a [charge of] noise in motor vehicle, then you picked up the new 

cases, the domestic violence cases or attempted domestic violence, as well as the 

attempted receiving stolen property. Now, you are also on post-release control. 

Your out date is March 7 of 2016, your final termination date. I spoke with Jerry 

Coates * * * earlier today. You haven’t been complying with the conditions * * * 

you were referred to the DIET program, which is the domestic violence program, 

and community work service, but you were discharged from both for failure to 

attend, and then you picked up new cases. 
* * * 

On this case, the Court does find that the crimes in this matter were committed 

while the defendant was on post-release control and while the defendant was on 

probation, and that the offender’s criminal history shows that consecutive terms 

are needed to protect the public. Further, the Court finds that such sentences are 

necessary to protect and punish and would not be disproportionate, so at this point 

the Court will run cases 591492 and 583339 consecutive to one another for an 

aggregate overall sentence of 2 years, 24 months [in addition to a mandatory 

one-year term for violating the prior postrelease control sanction]. 

{¶13} In the journal entries in Case Nos. CR-14-583339-A and CR-14-591492-A, the 

court indicated: 

The court imposes prison terms consecutively finding that consecutive service is 

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

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

conduct and to the danger defendant poses to the public; and that, the defendant 

committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the defendant was awaiting 

trial or sentencing or was under a community control or was under post-release 

control for a prior offense, or defendant’s history of criminal conduct 

demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from 

future crime by defendant. 

{¶14} On this record, the trial court clearly determined, with respect to the first part of the 

required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), that a consecutive sentence is necessary to protect 
the public from future crime and to punish the offender, in light of his extensive and ongoing 

criminal history. 

{¶15} As to the second finding, Amey complains that the court stated only that 

consecutive sentences “would not be disproportionate,” and therefore did not make the statutory 

finding that consecutive sentences “would not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the 

offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public.” This court rejected this 

same argument in State v. Cooperwood, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 99309–99311, 

2013-Ohio-3432, and stated: 

Cooperwood complains that the trial court, instead of stating that consecutive 

sentences “would not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s 

conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,” stated only that 

consecutive sentences “would not be disproportionate.” Viewing the court’s 

statement in its context, we are satisfied that the trial court made a distinct 

“proportionality” finding in compliance with the statute. 

Id. at ¶ 40. 

{¶16} Similarly, in this matter, the trial court’s statements on the record clearly indicate 

that it considered proportionality with regard to the seriousness of Amey’s conduct and the 

danger presented. The court remarked that Amey was on probation for a domestic violence 

conviction in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-578704. The court noted that he had been referred to 

domestic violence classes but did not attend them. The court also outlined Amey’s extensive 

record that included crimes of violence and offenses committed while Amey was on community 

control sanctions. The court remarked that he had not “responded favorably to sanctions 
previously imposed.” Viewing the court’s remarks in their entirety, we are satisfied that the 

trial court made a distinct “proportionality” finding in compliance with the statute. 

{¶17} Further, as to the additional findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c), the 

court additionally concluded that Amey committed multiple offenses while on postrelease control 

and probation, and his extensive and longstanding history of criminal conduct demonstrates that 

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

punish him. 

{¶18} In addition, all of the required findings are set forth in the trial court’s sentencing 

journal entry. 

{¶19} From all of the foregoing, it is clear from the sum and substance of the trial court’s 

statements and the sentence imposed in these separate matters, that the court concluded that 

consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the 

offender. The court also concluded that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the 

seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. The 

court additionally concluded that Amey committed multiple offenses while on postrelease control 

and probation, and his extensive and longstanding history of criminal conduct demonstrates that 

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

punish him. We therefore conclude that the trial court engaged in the requisite analysis and 

considered all of the statutory criteria. 

{¶20} Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶21} Judgment is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas 

court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, J., and 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR