[Cite as State v. Tucker, 2017-Ohio-4215.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

KAREEM TUCKER 

 Appellant 

C.A. Nos. 16CA010963 

 16CA010964 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE Nos. 10CR081026 

12CR084231 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: June 12, 2017 

 

HENSAL, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Kareem Tucker appeals his convictions and sentences in the Lorain County Court 

of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} In March 2012, a jury found Mr. Tucker guilty of multiple counts of kidnapping, 

as well as counts of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, robbery, burglary, and vandalism. 

Following merger of some of the offenses, the trial court sentenced him to a total of 25 years 

imprisonment. Eight months later, another jury found Mr. Tucker guilty of trafficking in drugs, 

possession of drugs, having weapons while under disability, possessing criminal tools, and use or 

possession of drug paraphernalia. After merging some of those offenses, the trial court 

sentenced him to a total of thirteen years and four months imprisonment. It also ordered his 
2 

 

sentences in the drug case to run consecutively to the prison term that had been imposed in the 

kidnapping case. 

{¶3} Mr. Tucker appealed both judgments. In the kidnapping case, this Court 

concluded that some of the trial court’s statements made it appear that it had imposed a harsher 

sentence on Mr. Tucker because he chose to go to trial. State v. Tucker, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 

14CA010704, 2016-Ohio-1354, ¶ 30. We, therefore, vacated his sentence and remanded the 

matter for a new sentencing hearing. Id. In the drug case, this Court concluded that the State 

failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Tucker had a 

weapon under disability. State v. Tucker, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010339, 2016-Ohio-1353, ¶ 

27. We also concluded that the record again suggested that the court had increased Mr. Tucker’s 

sentence for exercising his right to a trial by jury. Id. at ¶ 33. We, therefore, vacated his 

sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. 

{¶4} On remand, a different judge held a combined resentencing hearing. In the 

kidnapping case, the court sentenced Mr. Tucker to a total of 28 years imprisonment. In the drug 

case, it sentenced him to a total of 13 years imprisonment. The court ordered the sentences to 

run consecutive to each other, for a total prison term of 41 years. Mr. Tucker has appealed his 

sentences, assigning seven errors. Because some of his assignments of error raise similar issues, 

we will address them together. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, 

BY ENTERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON COUNT ONE OF THE 

INDICTMENT, TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS, AS A FELONY OF THE FIRST 

DEGREE, WHEN APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH, AND FOUND 

GUILTY BY THE JURY OF, TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS AS A FELONY OF 

THE FIFTH DEGREE. 
3 

 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, 

BY ENTERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ON 

COUNT FIVE OF THE INDICTMENT, TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE, AS A 

FELONY OF THE FOURTH DEGREE, WHEN APPELLANT WAS FOUND 

GUILTY BY THE JURY OF TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE AS A FELONY OF 

THE FIFTH DEGREE. 

{¶5} Mr. Tucker argues that the trial court incorrectly wrote in its sentencing entry that 

one of his drug trafficking convictions was a felony of the first degree and that another was a 

felony of the fourth degree. According to Mr. Tucker, the jury’s verdict only supports the 

conclusion that they were felonies of the fifth degree because the verdict forms do not contain 

any of the additional findings that are necessary to enhance the level of the offenses. 

{¶6} The State argues that Mr. Tucker’s arguments are barred by res judicata, asserting 

that they could have been made in his first appeal. The doctrine of res judicata “bars the 

assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of conviction that have been raised or could 

have been raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59, citing 

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. 

{¶7} In its original sentencing entry, the trial court wrote that the jury had found Mr. 

Tucker guilty of four counts of drug trafficking. The court wrote that one of the counts was a 

felony of the first degree, one was a felony of the fourth degree, and the others were felonies of 

the fifth degree. Mr. Tucker did not challenge the designations on appeal. On resentencing, the 

court again wrote that a jury found Mr. Tucker guilty of four counts of drug trafficking and that 

one of those counts is a felony of the first degree, one is a felony of the fourth degree, and two 

are felonies of the fifth degree. Upon review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Tucker could 

have challenged the offense level of his trafficking convictions in his initial appeal. His 
4 

 

argument, therefore, is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. D’Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 

141, 143 (1995) (“[If] an argument could have been raised on an initial appeal, res judicata

dictates that it is inappropriate to consider that same argument on a second appeal following 

remand.”). Mr. Tucker’s first and second assignments of error are overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, 

BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES TOTALING 13 YEARS, 

WHEN THE COURT’S FINDING UNDER R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), “THAT 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ARE NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE 

SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER’S CONDUCT,” IS NOT SUPPORTED 

BY THE RECORD. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, 

BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES TOTALING 13 YEARS, 

WHEN THE COURT FAILED TO MAKE A FINDING THAT IS SUFFICIENT 

UNDER DIVISION (b) OF R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), EITHER IN HIS JUDGMENT 

ENTRY, OR ON THE RECORD, BEFORE IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE 

SENTENCES. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, 

BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES TOTALING 28 YEARS, 

WHEN THE COURT’S FINDING UNDER R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), “THAT 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ARE NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE 

SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENDER’S CONDUCT,” IS NOT SUPPORTED 

BY THE RECORD. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, 

BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES TOTALING 28 YEARS, 

WHEN THE COURT FAILED TO MAKE A FINDING THAT IS SUFFICIENT 

UNDER DIVISION (b) OF R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), EITHER IN HIS JUDGMENT 

ENTRY, OR ON THE RECORD, BEFORE IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE 

SENTENCES. 
5 

 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, 

BY ORDERING THAT THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN 

CASE NO. 12CR084231 BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO THE 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN CASE NO. 10CR081026, FOR AN 

AGGREGATE PRISON TERM OF 41 YEARS, WITHOUT MAKING ANY OF 

THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), EITHER IN ITS 

JUDGMENT ENTRIES OR ON THE RECORD, BEFORE IMPOSING 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. 

{¶8} Mr. Tucker argues that the trial court failed to comply with Revised Code Section 

2929.14(C)(4) when it ordered him to serve his sentences in the kidnapping and drug cases 

consecutively. In reviewing a felony sentence, “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not 

whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “[A]n appellate court 

may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing 

evidence” that: (1) “the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant 

statutes,” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 

516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “which will produce 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 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. 

{¶9} Section 2929.14(C)(4) provides that, “[i]f multiple prison terms are imposed on 

an offender for convictions of multiple offenses,” the sentencing court may require the offender 

to serve the 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[.]” The court must also 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 
6 

 

to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under postrelease 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). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that “consecutive 

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the defendant and 

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

the danger defendant poses to the public.” It also found that a “single prison term would not 

adequately reflect the seriousness of defendant’s conduct.” It repeated those findings in its 

sentencing entries. 

{¶10} Regarding his drug case, Mr. Tucker argues that the circumstances do not indicate 

that his case was any more serious than other cases. He notes that the quantity of drugs that 

supported his felony of the first degree were merely in his possession and not part of any specific 

sale. He asserts that the sales that formed the basis of his other convictions were small amounts 

of cocaine, with nothing to distinguish them from other offenses involving the sale of small 

quantities of cocaine. 

{¶11} The trial court determined the seriousness of Mr. Tucker’s drug offenses by 

examining the factors listed in Section 2929.12(B) and (C). It found that there were factors that 

increased the seriousness of the offenses, but none that reduced the seriousness of the offenses. 

It, therefore, found that the factors increasing seriousness outweighed the ones decreasing 

seriousness. Mr. Tucker has not specifically challenged the trial court’s findings under Section 
7 

 

2929.12. In addition, the court was not required to explain the reasoning behind its findings 

under Section 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Brooks, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26352, 26437, 2013-Ohio2169, ¶ 13. Upon review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Tucker has not established by clear 

and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings with respect to 

the seriousness of his drug offenses. 

{¶12} Mr. Tucker next argues that the trial court failed to make all the findings 

necessary under Section 2929.14(C)(4)(b). Specifically, he argues that the court failed to find 

that the harm caused by his drug offenses was so “great” or “unusual” that a single prison term 

would not reflect the seriousness of his conduct. He also argues that the trial court failed to 

include such a finding in its sentencing entry. 

{¶13} In State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, the Ohio Supreme 

Court held that, to impose consecutive sentences, “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[.]” Id. at syllabus. It explained, however, that a “word-for-word recitation of 

the language of the statute is not required[.]” Id. at ¶ 29. Instead, “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.” Id. 

{¶14} The trial court shortened the language of Section 2929.14(C)(4)(b) into a finding 

that “[a] single prison term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of defendant’s conduct.” 

Although the court’s finding does not specifically state that the harm Mr. Tucker caused was 

great or unusual, we can discern from the court’s language that it engaged in the analysis 

required under Section 2929.14(C)(4)(b). See State v. Kilmire, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 27319, 

27320, 2015-Ohio-665, ¶ 17-18 (concluding that the trial court undertook the appropriate 
8 

 

analysis under Section 2929.14(C)(4) even though it did not use the precise language of the 

statute). We conclude that Mr. Tucker has failed to establish that the trial court did not make the 

proper findings under Section 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing or that it failed to include 

those findings in its sentencing entry concerning Mr. Tucker’s drug offenses. 

{¶15} Mr. Tucker also argues that his sentence in the kidnapping case is not supported 

by the record. He argues that his offenses do not nearly compare to the other types of offenses 

that would warrant a 28-year sentence. According to Mr. Tucker, his sentence is not consistent 

with the sentences imposed for similar crimes and is also much more severe than the sentence 

imposed on his co-defendant, who received only four years. He also asserts that his conduct, and 

the effect it had on the victims was not more serious than in other kidnapping cases. 

{¶16} We explained the details of the kidnapping case in Mr. Tucker’s prior appeal: 

In the early hours of the morning on July 17, 2010, Delno Clayton called his 

friend Calvin Parker and asked him to go drinking. Instead, Mr. Clayton and 

another man, who Mr. Parker identified as Kareem Tucker, stripped Mr. Parker to 

his undergarments, bound him with duct tape, stole his wallet, phone, and 

apartment key, and left him in a shed. Mr. Clayton returned a few hours later and, 

with Mr. Tucker on a cell phone call, demanded the combination to a safe located 

in Mr. Parker's bedroom. Mr. Parker initially gave incorrect information, but 

complied when he could hear the cries of children from the phone. Near 

daybreak, Mr. Parker escaped to a nearby gas station, where the attendant 

provided him with clothing and allowed him to use her phone to call police. 

On the same evening, two men entered Mr. Parker’s apartment in Lorain using a 

key. One man grabbed the resident from behind while the other punched her in 

the face, and then they dragged her to a bedroom where her three-year-old son 

slept. The men covered her and her son with a blanket, and one of them lay down 

on top of them while holding a gun near her head. The other man went to a 

second bedroom, where two other young children were located. The resident 

could hear their cries, but could not get away to help them. Over the course of 

several hours, the men attempted to open a small safe kept in the bedroom. They 

ultimately obtained the combination from the resident's boyfriend, Calvin Parker, 

emptied the contents of the safe, and left the resident and her children as they 

were. The resident identified the two men as Mr. Tucker and Mr. Clayton. 

Tucker, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 14CA010704, 2016-Ohio-1354, at ¶ 2-3. 
9 

 

{¶17} Section 2929.11(B) provides that a sentence imposed for a felony “shall be * * * 

consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.” This 

Court has explained that Section 2929.11(B) does not require uniformity, only consistency, 

which is requiring “a trial court to weigh the same factors for each defendant, which will 

ultimately result in an outcome that is rational and predictable.” State v. Quine, 9th Dist. Summit 

No. 20968, 2002-Ohio-6987, ¶ 12. This Court has also explained that “Ohio’s sentencing 

guidelines are just that, guidelines. Unless specifically stated, they do not require the imposition 

of a specific sentence. Rather, they require that the trial court consistently consider the same 

principles and characteristics prior to sentencing.” State v. Ruby, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23219, 

2007-Ohio-244, ¶ 13. 

{¶18} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that it had an obligation to look at 

the sentencing factors before imposing sentence. It discussed the factors pertaining to the 

seriousness of Mr. Tucker’s crimes as well as the ones pertaining to recidivism. It also noted 

that its role was “to properly punish the defendant and protect the public.” See R.C. 2929.11(A) 

(explaining the purposes of felony sentencing). It, therefore, appears that the trial court 

considered all of the appropriate factors when determining Mr. Tucker’s sentence. The details of 

the offenses indicate that Mr. Tucker terrorized multiple people, including a child, over several 

hours. The adult victims were all people he had known for a long time. Mr. Tucker also had a 

significant criminal history. In addition, he has not directed this Court to any other similar cases. 

Accordingly, we cannot say that he has established that the sentence imposed by the trial court 

was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. 

{¶19} Regarding Mr. Tucker’s co-defendant, “[t]here is no requirement that 

codefendants receive equal sentences[.] * * * Differences between defendants allow trial courts 
10 

 

to impose different sentences upon individuals convicted of similar crimes.” State v. Senz, 9th 

Dist. Medina No. 10CA0042-M, 2011-Ohio-2604, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Allen, 10th Dist. Franklin 

No. 10AP–487, 2011-Ohio-1757, ¶ 23. There is nothing in the record that indicates what 

sentencing factors applied to Mr. Tucker’s co-defendant, including whether he had a similar 

criminal history. The record also indicates that it was Mr. Tucker, not his co-defendant, who 

punched one of the victims during the kidnapping and pointed a gun at her head. We, therefore, 

conclude that Mr. Tucker has failed to demonstrate that his co-defendant was similarly situated 

for sentencing purposes. 

{¶20} Mr. Tucker next repeats his argument that the trial court failed to comply with 

Section 2929.14(C)(4)(b) because it did not explicitly find that the harm caused by his 

kidnapping case offenses was “great” or “unusual.” We reject this argument for the reasons 

stated earlier regarding the consecutive sentences imposed in his drug case. 

{¶21} Mr. Tucker’s final argument is that the trial court failed to explain why it was 

running his sentences in the two cases consecutive to each other. According to Mr. Tucker, the 

court was required to make separate additional findings about the appropriateness of running the 

sentences imposed in the two cases consecutive to each other before imposing such a sentence. 

{¶22} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Mr. Tucker to serve his 

sentences in the kidnapping case consecutive to each other and to his sentences in the drug case, 

which it had not imposed yet. It then explained its reasoning for imposing consecutive sentence. 

Next, it imposed Mr. Tucker’s sentences in the drug case, which it ordered to run consecutive to 

each other and to the sentences it had imposed in the kidnapping case. It then explained its 

reasons for imposing those sentences consecutively. The trial court, therefore, did not fail to 
11 

 

explain its reasons for running the sentences it imposed in the two cases consecutive to each 

other. 

{¶23} Upon review of the record, the trial court did not violate Section 2929.14(C)(4) 

when it ordered Mr. Tucker to serve consecutive sentences in either the kidnapping case or the 

drug case. Mr. Tucker’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh assignments of error are 

overruled. 

III. 

{¶24} Mr. Tucker’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of 

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document 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. 
12 

 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JENNIFER HENSAL 

 FOR THE COURT 

TEODOSIO, J. 

CALLAHAN, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

JAMES M. BURGE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.