[Cite as State v. Alexander, 2013-Ohio-1987.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98762 

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

VAUGHN ALEXANDER, JR.

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-555041 and CR-561726 

BEFORE: Jones, P.J., E.A. Gallagher, J., and Kilbane, J. 

 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 16, 2013
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Thomas A. Rein 

Leader Building, Suite 940 

526 Superior Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Andrew J. Santoli 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Vaughn Alexander, appeals his consecutive sentence. 

We affirm. 

I. Procedural History 

{¶2} In December 2011, Alexander entered into a plea agreement with the state of 

Ohio and pleaded guilty to two counts of drug trafficking and agreed to forfeit four cell 

phones in Case No. CR-555041. The trial court sentenced Alexander to two years of 

community control sanctions with conditions. In addition, the trial court issued a 

suspended sentence of 12 months in prison on each drug trafficking count. At the time 

of his plea and sentence, Alexander was on probation to the court in Case No. 

CR-547970. 

{¶3} On July 17, 2012, Alexander pleaded guilty to one count of drug trafficking 

and one count of attempted retaliation and agreed to forfeit a bicycle and a cell phone in 

Case No. CR-561726. The trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing and revoked 

Alexander’s community control sanctions in CR-555041. The trial court sentenced 

Alexander as follows: (1) in Case No. CR-561726, the court sentenced Alexander to 17 

months in prison on each of the two counts, to be served concurrently; (2) in Case No. 

CR-555041, the court sentenced him to 11 months in prison on each of the two counts, to 

be served concurrently; and (3) in Case No. CR-547970, the court decided to terminate 

probation. The trial court ordered the sentences in Case Nos. CR-555041 and 

CR-561726 to be served consecutively, for a total of 28 months in prison. 
II. Law and Analysis

{¶4} Alexander appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review, in which 

he argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making 

findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14. 

{¶5} An appellate court must conduct a meaningful review of the trial court’s 

sentencing decision. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 97579, 2012-Ohio-2508, ¶ 6, citing 

State v. Hites, 3d Dist. No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that 

an appellate court must “review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence 

or modification given by the sentencing court.” If an appellate court clearly and 

convincingly finds either that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s 

findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” 

then “the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or 

may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing.” 

Johnson at id.

{¶6} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides that if multiple prison terms are imposed on an 

offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve 

the prison terms consecutively if (1) the court finds that the consecutive sentence is 

necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender; (2) that the 

consecutive sentence is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct 

and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and (3) 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 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).1

{¶7} Thus, a sentencing court must analyze whether consecutive sentences are 

necessary to protect the public or punish the offender, are not disproportionate, and make 

one additional finding listed in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c). 

{¶8} “A trial court satisfies this statutory requirement when the record reflects that 

the court has engaged in the required analysis and has selected the appropriate statutory 

criteria.” State v. Goins, 8th Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263, ¶ 10, citing State v. 

Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 326, 1999-Ohio-10, 715 N.E.2d 131. 

{¶9} In making these findings, a trial court is not required to use “talismanic words 

 1

 R.C. 2929.14(C) refers to “convictions of multiple offenses,” but does not distinguish 

between multiple counts in a single case and multiple counts in separate cases. Consequently, the 

statute applies even though Alexander was sentenced in two separate cases. 
to comply with the guidelines and factors for sentencing.” Goins at id., citing State v. 

Brewer, 1st Dist. No. C-000148, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5455, *10 (Nov. 24, 2000). 

But it must be clear from the record that the trial court actually made the findings required 

by statute. Goins at id. A trial court satisfies this statutory requirement when the record 

reflects that the court has engaged in the required analysis and has selected the 

appropriate statutory criteria. Id.

{¶10} In sentencing Alexander to consecutive sentences, the trial court stated that 

“the purpose of felony sentencing in the State of Ohio is to protect the public and punish 

the offender.” The court then outlined Alexander’s “extensive” criminal history, which 

dated back to 1994, commenting that he had a “very, very poor adjustment to probation.” 

The court noted that Alexander was on community control sanctions at the time he 

committed the current crimes and showed no remorse. The court found that “due to the 

defendant’s extensive history of narcotics trafficking, finding that these crimes were 

committed while this defendant was under sanction to this court, and given that this 

defendant does have an extensive criminal history of similar offenses * * * consecutive 

sentences are appropriate.” 

{¶11} Alexander claims that his sentence should be vacated because the trial court 

failed to specifically find that the consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the 

seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses to the public. But the trial court 

made the appropriate findings as to proportionality when it stated that it was imposing 

consecutive sentences based on Alexander’s extensive criminal history, noting that many 
of his past crimes were similar in nature and involved drug trafficking. See State v. 

Drobny, 8th Dist. No. 98404, 2013-Ohio-937; Goins, supra (finding the record offered 

evidence that the trial court fully engaged in the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis, even though 

specific findings were not stated on the record); State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. No. 98354, 

2013-Ohio-372; but see State v. Battle, 8th Dist. No. 98294, 2013-Ohio-816 (trial court 

failed to expressly address the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) factors and there was insufficient 

evidence in the record to show a reasoned consideration of the factors). 

{¶12} Here, the trial court considered not only Alexander’s past crimes, but the 

fact that it had twice previously sentenced Alexander to alternatives to prison, but 

Alexander continued to traffic in narcotics. 

{¶13} In light of the above, the trial court engaged in the appropriate analysis in 

deciding to run the sentence in Case No. CR-561726 consecutive to the sentence it 

imposed in Case No. CR-555041.2

{¶14} The sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶15} Judgment affirmed. 

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

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 2

 Trial courts can ensure compliance with the sentencing statutes by utilizing a worksheet and 

memorializing their findings from that worksheet on both the record and in the court’s journal entry. 

“Because a trial court speaks only through its journal, we have long approved the use of a 

sentencing-findings worksheet to document that the trial court has made the required findings.” State 

v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 98371, 2013-Ohio-489, ¶ 47 (Gallagher, S., concurring), citing State v. 

Alexander, 1st Dist. Nos. C-110828 and C-110829, 2012-Ohio-3349. 
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for 

execution of sentence. 

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

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR