[Cite as State v. Beasley , 2020-Ohio-4142.]

Atty. James L. Peters , Monroe County Prosecutor, 101 North Main Street, Room 15, P.O. Box 430, Woodsfield, Ohio 43793-0430, for Plaintiff-Appel lee (No Brief Filed) and Atty. Katherine Rudzik, 26 Market Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for DefendantAppellant. 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MONROE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. TEVIN MARTELL BEASLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 19 MO 0004

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Ohio Case No. 2017-048

BEFORE: David A. D’Apolito, Cher y l L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Jud g es.

JUDGMENT: Affirmed.– 2 –

Case No. 19 MO 0004 Dated: Au g ust 14, 2020

D’APOLITO, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Tevin Martell Beasley, appeals from the February 19, 2019 judgment of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to a total of eight years in prison for aggravated robbery with a firearm specifica tion following a guilty plea. On appeal, Appellant takes issue with his consecutive sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} On February 24, 2017, Appellant was indicted by the Monroe Coun ty Grand Jury on one count of aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), with a firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 29 41.145. 1 Appellant was appointed counsel, pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, and w aived the time limitations provided by R.C. 2945.71. {¶3} Thereafter, Appellant withdrew his former not guilty plea and e ntered an oral and written plea of guilty to the count and specification as ch arged in the indictment. The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea after finding it was made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner pursuant to Crim.R. 11. The court ordered a PSI and deferred sentencing. {¶4} At the sentencing hearing, Appellee, the State of Ohio, recomme nded a three-year prison term on the aggravated robbery count and a ma ndatory three-year consecutive sentence on the firearm specification. {¶5} After considering the record, statements, the PSI, the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, the seriousness an d recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, and the prison factors pursuant to R.C. 292 9.13, the trial court found that consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 are necessa ry to protect the public from future crimes and to punish Appellant. The court sentenced Appellant to five years

1 The charge stems from Appellant’s involvement in the robbery of a gas station where he entered with a gun and escaped with two co-defendants. Appellant was later ar rested in Michigan and eventually returned to Ohio. During the pendency of this case, Appellant was feder ally convicted and sentenced for unrelated acts.– 3 –

Case No. 19 MO 0004 on the aggravated robbery count and three years on the firearm specification to be served consecutively for a total of eight years in prison, with 197 da ys of jail-time credit. The court also notified Appellant that post-release control is mand atory for a period of five
years. {¶6} Appellant filed a timely appeal and raises one assignment of er ror. 2

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN THE CURRENT CASE
WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.

{¶7} When reviewing a felony sentence, an appellate court must uphol d the sentence unless the evidence clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings under the applicable sentencing statutes or the senten ce is otherwise contrary to
law. State v. Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)-(b). {¶8} Regarding consecutive sentences, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states:

(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for con victions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive ser vice 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 the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.

(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as par t of one or

2 The State did not file a brief.– 4 –

Case No. 19 MO 0004 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 tha t consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the
offender.

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c).
It has been held that although the trial court is not required to recite the statute verbatim or utter “magic” or “talismanic” words, there must be an indication that the court found (1) that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offend er, (2) that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousne ss of the offender’s conduct and to the danger posed to the public, and ( 3) one of the findings described in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c). State v. Bellard , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12-MA-97, 2013-Ohio-2956, ¶ 17. The court ne ed not give its reasons for making those findings however. State v. Power , 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 12 CO 14, 2013-Ohio-4254, ¶ 38. A trial court mu st make the consecutive sentence findings at the sentencing hearing and must additionally incorporate the findings into the sentencing entry

. State v.
Williams , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13-MA-125, 2015-Ohio-4100, ¶ 33-34, citing State v. Bonnell , 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37.

State v. Thomas , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 18 MA 0025, 2020-Ohio-633, ¶ 41. {¶9} At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge indicated that she r eviewed the PSI, which reveals Appellant’s extensive prior convictions and his classification as a “high risk” offender. The judge considered the R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12 , and 2929.13 factors. Further, the judge, regarding consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14, specifically stated:– 5 –

Case No. 19 MO 0004 And the Court also finds that a combination of Community Contro l Sanctions or any form of Community Control Sanctions or the shortest pris on sentence, in this particular case, would demean the seriousness of this Defendant’s misconduct, and the Court finds that consecutive se ntences are necessary – they are mandatory in this case, with the gun s pecification.

The Court finds nonetheless that they are necessary to protect the public from any future crimes by this Defendant or others, and to puni sh this offender, and that this Court finds that consecutive sentences or sentence is not disproportionate to the seriousness of Mr. Beasley’s con duct, and the danger that he posed to the public in this County.

(2/13/2019 Sentencing Hearing T.p. 22). {¶10} Also, in its February 19, 2019 judgment, the trial court stated :
[T]his Court specifically finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes and to punish the Defenda nt; that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousne ss of the Defendant’s misconduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public; and further, that the harm is so great or unusual that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. Further, the Court finds that 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 m ore 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 Defendant’s m isconduct.

(2/19/2019 Judgment Entry, p. 2-3). {¶11} Thus, the trial court found that “the consecutive service is necessar y to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the of fender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public[.]” R.C. 2929.14(C )(4). The court also found– 6 –

Case No. 19 MO 0004 the offenses were committed during a course of conduct and that the harm was so great or unusual that a single term does not “ade quately refl ect the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.” R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b). {¶12} Accordingly, the record before us indicates that the trial cour t complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See Thomas, supra, at ¶ 41. As a result, we do not find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support Appell ant’s consecutive sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law.

CONCLUSION

{¶13} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s sole assignment of erroris not welltaken. The February 19, 2019 judgment of the Monroe County Cou rt of Common Pleas sentencing Appellant to a total of eight years in prison for ag gravated robbery with a firearm specification following a guilty plea is affirmed.

Waite, P.J., concurs.
Robb, J., concurs.[Cite as State v. Beasley , 2020-Ohio-4142.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assi gnment of error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Cou rt that the judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Ohio, is affirmed. Cos ts to be waived. A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall const itute the mandate in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Proc edure. It is ordered that a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to car ry this judgment into
execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.