[Cite as State v. Dawson, 2024-Ohio-1806.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

OTTAWA COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-23-016

Appellee Trial Court No. 22 CR 045

 

v.

Antwuan B. Dawson DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: May 10, 2024

* * * * *

James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and

Thomas A. Matuszak, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Joseph Sobecki, for appellant.

* * * * *

SULEK, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Antwuan B. Dawson, appeals from the December 1, 2022

judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of 

failure to comply, two counts of receiving stolen property, one count of improperly 

handling firearms in a motor vehicle, one count of carrying concealed weapons, one 

count of tampering with evidence, one count of possession of criminal tools, and one 

count of assault and sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of 11 years. Dawson’s 

single assignment of error challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive 

sentences. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
2.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On March 3, 2022, the Ottawa County Grand Jury indicted Dawson on one 

count of failure to comply in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5)(a)(ii), a felony of 

the third degree (count one); two counts of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 

2913.51(A) and (C), a felony of the fourth degree (counts two and three); one count of 

improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B) and (I), a 

fourth degree felony (count four); one count of carrying a concealed weapon in violation 

of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) and (F)(1), a felony of the fourth degree (count five); one count of 

tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) and (B), a third-degree 

felony (count six); one count of possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) 

and (C), a fifth-degree felony (count seven), and one count of assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.13(A) and (C)(4)(a), a fifth-degree felony (count eight). Counts one and two each 

had a one-year firearm specification under R.C. 2941.141(A). Counts two and three had 

specifications for forfeiture of property under R.C. 2941.1417(A).

{¶ 3} Counts one through seven stem from an incident on February 10, 2022 in 

which Dawson, after being signaled to pull over by police officers while driving on State 

Route 2 in Ottawa County, engaged in a high-speed attempt to escape police. Dawson 

only stopped the vehicle he was driving after police used spikes, and then he and the 

passengers in Dawson’s vehicle attempted to flee the police on foot. Dawson was 

eventually apprehended, and police discovered, among other things, that the vehicle 

Dawson had been driving was stolen and Dawson was in possession of a loaded, stolen 

firearm. 
3.

{¶ 4} Count eight, assault, arose from an incident on February 19, 2022. 

According to the indictment, on that date, Dawson caused or attempted to harm someone 

on the grounds of a local correctional facility. The victim was either an employee of the 

correctional facility or probation department, or on the premises of the correctional 

facility as a visitor or for business purposes. The indictment further alleged that Dawson 

was under custody in the correctional facility after he had been arrested and charged with

or convicted of a crime. 

{¶ 5} Dawson initially pled not guilty to the charges and moved for a hearing to 

determine his competency to stand trial. Dawson was then evaluated by a psychologist, 

Dr. Daniel Marston, whose report was filed under seal. Based on Dr. Marston’s report, 

the trial court found Dawson competent to understand the proceedings against him and to 

assist in his defense. 

{¶ 6} On October 21, 2022, Dawson changed his plea to guilty on all eight counts, 

and the trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI). According to the PSI, 

Dawson’s criminal history included a dismissed charge from October 13, 2021 in Wayne 

County, Michigan for assault with a dangerous weapon; the offenses in the instant case; 

and an active warrant from Macomb County, Michigan for the unauthorized use of a 

vehicle. Dawson also has a significant substance abuse history, and according to the PSI, 

he used marijuana, ecstasy, and narcotic pain medications daily, with his most recent use 

occurring on the day of the February 10, 2022 incident. The PSI also contained a 

notation stating that Dawson had been involved in several incidents while in a 

correctional facility awaiting trial, the most recent of which was September 30, 2022. 
4.

During one or more of these incidents, Dawson assaulted staff or other inmates, a Taser 

had to be deployed, and Dawson was placed in a restraint chair. The PSI also noted,

“according to one of the arresting [o]fficers Mr. Dawson made the comment ... that if the 

K9 did not scare him Mr. Dawson was going to start shooting.” 

{¶ 7} On November 28, 2022, Dawson appeared for sentencing. The trial court 

found that counts 4 and 5 merged and the state elected to proceed to sentencing on count 

4. After explaining that it had reviewed the entire PSI, the appellant’s statements, and the 

police reports, the court imposed the following sentences: as to count one, a 36-month

prison term; as to count two, a 12-month prison term; as to count five, a 12-month prison 

term; as to count six, a 36-month prison term; as to count seven, a 12-month prison term; 

and as to count eight, a 12-month prison term. The court ordered the sentences to run 

consecutively, finding that consecutive sentences were “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 the danger the offender 

poses to the public.”

{¶ 8} The following discussion then occurred between the prosecutor and the 

court:

Mr. Matuszak: Your Honor, when the Court made its consecutive sentence 

findings, I had missed which subsection of 2929.14(C)(4). Was it (B) or (C)? I 

believe it was (B).

The Court: Let me reread. I don’t have the section. It, I found that the Court 

finds that 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 the danger the offender poses to 

the public.
5.

Mr. Matuszak: And I believe the Court has to select one of the three subsections, 

(A), (B), or (C).

The Court: The Court further finds that the offender’s history of criminal conduct 

demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from 

future crime by the offender. 

{¶ 9} As to the firearm specifications on counts one and two, the court explained 

that the count one’s 36-month term included the one-year specification. The court 

initially stated that count two’s 12-month term also included a one-year specification, but 

then amended the sentence so that count two would have two prison terms: a 12-month 

term to run concurrent with the sentences in the other counts, and a 12-month term for the 

firearm specification to run consecutively with the other sentences. As a result, the trial 

court imposed an aggregate sentence of 11 years.

{¶ 10} Dawson was granted leave to file a delayed appeal of his sentence on 

August 2, 2023.

II. Assignment of Error

{¶ 11} Dawson asserts the following assignment of error for review:

The trial court erred by ordering that Dawson’s sentences be served consecutively.

III. Arguments of the Parties

{¶ 12} In support of his assignment of error, Dawson makes three arguments. 

First, Dawson argues that the trial court did not make the required statutory finding of 

necessity under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) because the court found that consecutive sentences 

were “necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender” rather 

than electing one basis for necessity. Next, Dawson argues that the trial court erred in 

only making a finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) after the state prompted 
6.

the court. Finally, Dawson argues that the record clearly and convincingly does not 

support the trial court’s finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c).

{¶ 13} In response, the state argues that Dawson failed to object to the imposition 

of consecutive sentences in the trial court and therefore has waived all but plain error. 

The state also contends that Dawson did not transmit all of the trial court records, and 

therefore the proceedings below must be presumed to be regular. Next, the state points 

out that the trial court was required by statute to impose consecutive prison terms for 

count one, failure to comply, as well as the one-year firearm specifications on counts one 

and two. Finally, the state argues that Dawson failed to demonstrate that the record 

clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences for 

counts three, five, six, seven, and eight.

IV. Law and Analysis

{¶ 14} Sentencing challenges are reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The statute 

permits an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate a 

sentence and remand the matter for resentencing where the court finds:

(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division 

(B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, 

or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is 

relevant;

(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

{¶ 15} The Ohio Supreme Court, in a plurality decision, recently vacated its earlier 

decision requiring an appellate court to conduct a de novo review of consecutive 
7.

sentences and consider the aggregate sentence imposed.1 State v. Gwynne, Slip Opinion 

No. 2023-Ohio-3851 (“Gwynne V”), vacating State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607 

(“Gwynne IV”). Instead, the lead opinion in Gwynne V explained that under R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court must give deference to a sentencing court’s findings in 

support of consecutive sentences. Id. at ¶ 15. Unless an appellate court has “a firm belief 

or conviction that the record does not support the trial court’s findings,” the appellate 

court must affirm a trial court’s judgment imposing consecutive sentences. Id.

{¶ 16} Generally, R.C. 2929.41(A) imposes a presumption that prison terms are to 

be served concurrently. State v. Neff, 2021-Ohio-3766, ¶ 65 (6th Dist.). To impose 

consecutive sentences, a trial court must make three findings in both the sentencing 

hearing and in the sentencing entry. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See also State v. Bonnell, 

2014-Ohio-3177, syllabus; State v. Sipperley, 2020-Ohio-4609, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.). The 

three findings are as follows: (1) consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public 

from future crime or to punish the offender; (2) consecutive sentences are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the 

offender poses to the public; and (3) one or more of the findings listed in R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c). State v. Beasley, 2018-Ohio-493, ¶ 252. A trial court need 

not explain its reasoning for its findings as long as the record contains some evidence to 

1 At the time that Dawson filed his brief, Gwynne V had not yet been released, and his 

brief cites Gwynne IV. Gwynne V was released shortly after Dawson filed his brief, and 

the state cites Gwynne V in its brief. Despite being granted extra time to do so, Dawson 

did not file a reply brief and therefore has not presented any arguments regarding Gwynne 

V.
8.

support the trial court’s findings. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 at ¶ 29; see also State v. 

Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083, ¶ 11. Further, “a word-for-word recitation of the language of the 

statute is not required” so long the trial court engaged in the correct analysis. Id.

{¶ 17} Notably, these findings are not required to impose consecutive sentences 

for all offenses. Trial courts are statutorily required to impose consecutive sentences for 

certain offenses. R.C. 2921.331(D), Ohio’s failure-to-comply statute, provides as 

follows:

If an offender is sentenced pursuant to division (C)(4) or (5) of this section for a 

violation of division (B) of this section, and if the offender is sentenced to a prison 

term for that violation, the offender shall serve the prison term consecutively to 

any other prison term or mandatory prison term imposed upon the offender.

A court sentencing an offender convicted of violating R.C. 2921.331(B)(C)(5)(a)(ii), as 

here, need not make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before requiring the offender to serve 

the sentence imposed for the violation consecutively to the offender’s other sentences. 

McKinney v. Haviland, 2020-Ohio-4785, ¶ 4, fn. 1 (“By statute, the sentences for the 

failure-to-comply charges must be served consecutively to any other prison terms.”); 

State v. Barnhart, 2023-Ohio-3488, ¶ 30-31 (4th Dist.). Accordingly, the trial court was 

required to order Dawson to serve his sentence for count one, failure to comply, 

consecutively with his other sentences and did not need to make any findings under R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4).

{¶ 18} Similarly, “[t]he sentence for a firearm specification must be served 

consecutively to, and prior to, any sentence for the underlying felony offense.” State ex 

rel. Scott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, 2022-Ohio-3635, ¶ 10, citing R.C. 
9.

2929.14(C)(1)(a); State v. Moore, 2018-Ohio-3237, ¶ 8. “R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) also 

requires that the sentence for a firearm specification be served ‘consecutively to any other 

prison term or mandatory prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the 

offender.’” Scott at ¶ 11; see also State v. McDonald, 2019-Ohio-1034, ¶ 12-14 (6th 

Dist.). Accordingly, the trial court was not required to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings 

to impose consecutive sentences imposed for the firearm specifications on counts one and 

two.

{¶ 19} Because the trial court was not required to make any findings under R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4) to run Dawson’s sentences for his failure-to-comply conviction and two 

firearm specifications consecutively with his sentences for his other convictions, our 

review of the trial court’s findings under that statute is limited to the sentences imposed 

for counts three, five, six, seven, and eight. With respect to those counts, the trial court 

made the necessary R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. 

{¶ 20} First, Dawson’s argument that the trial court did not make a finding that 

consecutive sentences were necessary is incorrect. Dawson contends that the trial court

was required to choose whether consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the 

public or to punish Dawson, and therefore the trial court’s statement that consecutive 

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

offender” did not amount to an election of either. The trial court directly recited the 

language in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) regarding necessity, and although a trial court is not 

required to quote the statutory language in making its findings, a trial court is certainly 

not prohibited from doing so. 
10.

{¶ 21} In addition, the trial court’s finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) was not 

clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Under that section, the trial court 

must find that “[t]he offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive 

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.” 

{¶ 22} For purposes of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), a trial court is not limited to 

considering criminal conduct that resulted in a conviction. State v. Steele, 2017-Ohio7605, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.) (“[A] sentencing judge can consider a defendant’s uncharged 

conduct as a basis for establishing a history of criminal conduct for purposes of ordering 

consecutive service.”); see also State v. Tillis, 2023-Ohio-673, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.) (“[T]he 

sentencing court is permitted to consider charges against a defendant in ordering 

consecutive sentences even if a defendant is not ultimately convicted of such charges.”). 

Indeed, in a case involving an offender without any prior adult convictions, the Tenth 

District Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly considered the offender’s drug 

use in finding that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) applied. State v. Cardwell, 2016-Ohio-5591, ¶ 

11, 15 (10th Dist.). Further, although “the offenses of the case at issue ... cannot be the 

sole basis underlying the trial court’s history-of-criminal conduct finding, ... they may 

nevertheless be considered as part of the offender’s criminal history.” State v. Curtis, 

2022-Ohio-1691, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 23} Here, according to the PSI, Dawson was charged with assault with a 

dangerous weapon in October 2021, only a few months after his 18th birthday. That 

charge was dismissed, but only a few months later was the February 10, 2022 high-speed 

chase underlying most of the charges for which he was convicted in this case. A little 
11.

over a week after Dawson was arrested, on February 19, 2022, he committed assault 

while being held in a correctional facility, an offense for which he was also convicted in 

the instant case. In addition to his conviction for assault in the correctional facility, the 

PSI reported that Dawson had been involved in several other violent incidents while 

there. The PSI also included Dawson’s significant substance abuse history, including 

daily use of marijuana, ecstasy, and narcotic pain medications as recent as the date of his 

arrest in this case. Given Dawson’s history of criminal conduct—both charged and 

uncharged—in the short time he has been an adult, the trial court’s findings are not 

clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. 

{¶ 24} Further, the state’s prompting the trial court to make a finding under R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) does not make the finding deficient. State v. Miller, 2022-

Ohio-1438, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Armstrong, 2003-Ohio-2154, ¶ 10 (9th 

Dist.) (“Although it is better practice for a trial court to make its findings for imposing 

consecutive sentences on the record without prompting from the state, ‘such a method of 

placing the findings on the record is not legally deficient.’”).

{¶ 25} Therefore, the trial court’s judgment imposing consecutive sentences is 

affirmed, and Dawson’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
12.

V. Conclusion

{¶ 26} For the foregoing reasons, Dawson’s appeal of the December 1, 2022

judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas is dismissed. Dawson is ordered 

to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________

JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda, J. 

____________________________

Charles E. Sulek, P.J. JUDGE

CONCUR. 

____________________________

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.