[Cite as State v. Leyh , 2019-Ohio-3640.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v.

CLARENCE LEYH Appellant C.A. No. 29298

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-2018-03-1036

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 11, 2019

SCHAFER, Judge. {¶1} Clarence Leyh appeals the sentence impos ed by the Summit County Court of

Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.

I. {¶2} Mr. Leyh pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(5 )(C)(1), felonies of the fourth degree; two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1)(C)(1), felonies of the fourth degree; one count of sexual imposition in viol ation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(1)(C), a misdemeanor of the third degree; and one count of sexual im position in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A)(3)(C), a misdemeanor of the third degree. The trial cour t ordered that a presente nce investigation report with a victim impact statement be prepared, and further ordered a psycho-sexual evaluation with report to be prepared, and set the ma tter over for a sentencing hearing.2

{¶3} Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Mr. Leyh to one year for each of the two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(5), one year for each of the two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), and sixty days of jail time for each of the two counts of sexual imposition. In the sentencing entry, the trial court stated that it “performed an analysis concerning allied offenses in regard to

State v [.] Johnson and [found] that the charges to the [i ]ndictment are not allied offenses of similar import, and do not merge for purposes of sentencing herein.” The trial court further noted that “[n]either the [S]tat e nor defense counsel objected to the [c]ourt’s determination.” The trial court ordered that the one-year sentence s imposed in the first four counts be served consecutively to each other, while the sixty-day sentences imposed in the fifth and sixth counts be served concurrently to each other and concurrent ly to the first four counts, resulting in a total of four years imprisonment. The trial court also adjudicated Mr. Leyh a Tier I sex offender and imposed sexual offender re gistration requirements. {¶4} Mr. Leyh appealed his sentence raising on e assignment of error for our review.

II. Assignment of Error The four counts of gross sexual imposition are allied offenses of similar import and should have merged for sentencing purposes. {¶5} In his argument on appeal, Mr. Leyh contends that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an inquiry of the facts to determine hi s animus as to each of the four counts of gross sexual imposition. Mr. Leyh argues that, if the trial court had undertaken such an analysis, it would have found that the charges were simply di fferent theories presented by the State. Mr. Leyh invites this Court to conduct an inquiry and determine that the four counts of gross sexual imposition “should be viewed as allied offenses of similar import and sentenced accordingly.”3

{¶6} Generally, this Court c onducts a de novo review of a trial court’s decision regarding merger of allied offenses. State v. Harris , 9th Dist. Medina No. 16C0054-M, 2017- Ohio-8263 ¶ 25. However, we are unable to reach the merits of his argument because Mr. Leyh did not provide a complete record for our review. “[T]he burden of ensuring that the record on appeal is complete is placed on appellant.” State v. Keene , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 06CA008880, 2006–Ohio–6676, ¶ 22. Mr. Leyh failed to ensure that th e transcript of the sentencing hearing be prepared and made part of the record. Additiona lly, Mr. Leyh attached a purported copy of the presentence investigation report to his brief. Upon motion of the State, this Court issued a magistrate’s order striking the appended document. Consequently, the pr esentence investigation report is also not in the record. {¶7} “This Court has consistently held that, wh ere the appellant has failed to provide a complete record to facilitate appellate review, we are compelled to presume regularity in the proceedings below and affirm the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Brooks , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA010958, 2017-Ohio-5620, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Farnsworth , 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0038–M, 2016-Ohio-7919, ¶ 16. In light of the record before us, we must overrule Mr. Leyh’s assignment of error.

III. {¶8} Mr. Leyh’s assignment of error is ove rruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.4

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22 (C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

JULIE A. SCHAFER FOR THE COURT

TEODOSIO, P. J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: THOMAS J. MCGUIRE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO GUEST, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.