[Cite as State v. Shreves, 2016-Ohio-7824.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

AUGLAIZE COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 2-16-11 

 v. 

MICHAEL SEAN SHREVES, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 2015-CR-137 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: November 21, 2016 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Rob C. Wiesenmayer for Appellant 

 Edwin A. Pierce for Appellee 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-2- 

SHAW, P.J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Michael Shreves (“Shreves”), brings this appeal 

from the June 27, 2016, judgment of the Auglaize County Common Pleas Court 

sentencing Shreves to an aggregate prison term of 78 months after Shreves pled 

guilty to Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), a 

felony of the third degree, and Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor 

in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2907.04(A), a felony of the fourth degree. 

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On November 17, 2015, Shreves was indicted for one count of Rape in 

violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the first degree, one count of Attempted 

Rape in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the 

second degree, one count of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor in violation of 

R.C. 2907.04(A), a felony of the third degree, and one count of Attempted Unlawful 

Sexual Conduct with a Minor in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2907.04(A), 

a felony of the fourth degree. 

{¶3} Shreves pled not guilty to the charges. In addition, Shreves filed written 

pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity and he requested a mental examination to 

determine his competency to stand trial and to determine his mental condition at the 

time of the commission of the alleged offenses. 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-3- 

{¶4} On January 22, 2016, and March 4, 2016, the trial court held a hearing 

to determine Shreves’s competency to stand trial. Following a review of the 

competency evaluation the court had received, which was included in the record, 

the trial court deemed Shreves competent to stand trial.1

 An entry reflecting the trial 

court’s determination was filed March 4, 2015. 

{¶5} Subsequently, Shreves entered into a written negotiated guilty plea 

wherein he agreed to withdraw his not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity 

pleas and plead guilty to one count of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor in 

violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), a felony of the third degree, and one count of 

Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) 

and R.C. 2907.04(A), a felony of the fourth degree. Shreves also specifically agreed 

that the offenses would not merge, stating that they were committed with a separate 

animus. (Doc. No. 65). In exchange for Shreves’s guilty pleas, the State agreed to 

dismiss the Rape and Attempted Rape charges against him. 

{¶6} On April 19, 2016, the trial court held a change-of-plea hearing 

wherein, per the written plea agreement, Shreves withdrew his pleas of not guilty 

and not guilty by reason of insanity and pled guilty to the charges of Unlawful 

Sexual Conduct with a Minor and Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a 

 

1

 The report itself stated that to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty Shreves was competent to 

stand trial. 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-4- 

Minor. The court conducted a very thorough Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Shreves and 

determined that he was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering his pleas.2

 

{¶7} The court also had the State recite a factual basis for the crimes. The 

State indicated that on July 31, 2015, the 14-year-old victim was staying at a 

residence where Shreves was present. The victim’s friend, R.H., was Shreves’s 

girlfriend at that time. After the victim’s friend went to bed, Shreves digitally 

penetrated the victim’s vagina with his finger, “then attempted to penetrate her 

vagina with his penis, but was unable to do so.” (Apr. 19, 2016, Tr. at 24). A rape 

kit was later conducted wherein Shreves’s DNA was located on a swab of the 

victim’s “clitoral hood.” (April 19, 2016, Tr. at 24). Shreves was just shy of 30 

years old at the time, elevating the Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor from a 

fourth degree felony to a third degree felony due to an age gap equal to, or in excess 

of, 10 years between Shreves and the 14-year-old victim. 

{¶8} The court ultimately accepted Shreves’s guilty pleas to the two charges 

and found him guilty, ordering a pre-sentence investigation and a victim impact 

statement to be prepared. 

 

2

 The trial court was especially thorough in its Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Shreves at the change-of-plea 

hearing because a prior pretrial hearing had been held wherein Shreves initially indicated he wanted to plead 

guilty, but then he changed his mind, stating that he was actually innocent. The matter was set for trial, but 

at a subsequent hearing Shreves elected to change his plea, stating that his earlier wavering was a result of 

advice he was receiving from other inmates to get a new attorney. 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-5- 

{¶9} On June 24, 2016, Shreves’s sentencing hearing was held. At 

sentencing the State requested maximum sentences on both counts to be run 

consecutively, while Shreves’s attorney requested leniency, asking that Shreves be 

placed on community control. Shreves’s attorney noted Shreves’s cognitive 

difficulties and his general remorse for his crimes. Shreves echoed those sentiments 

himself. 

{¶10} The court then proceeded to sentence Shreves, ordering Shreves to 

serve 60 months in prison on the Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor charge and 

18 months in prison on the Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor 

charge. Those sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to each other, for 

an aggregate prison term of 78 months. 

{¶11} A judgment entry memorializing Shreves’s sentence was filed June 

27, 2016. It is from this judgment that Shreves appeals, asserting the following 

assignment of error for our review. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE TRIAL COURT’S SENTENCE OF THE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT TO CONSECUTIVE MAXIMUM SENTNECES 

OF (60) MONTHS FOR UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONDUCT 

WITH A MINOR AND EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FOR 

ATTEMPTED UNLAWFUL SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A 

MINOR FOR A TOTAL SENTENCE OF SEVENTY-EIGHT 

(78) MONTHS WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FURTHER 

CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING 

TO PROPERLY CONSIDER AND APPLY THE FELONY 

SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN OHIO REVISED CODE, 

SECTION 2929.11 AND 2929.12. 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-6- 

{¶12} In Shreves’s assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in 

sentencing Shreves to maximum consecutive prison terms.3

 Specifically, he 

contends that the trial court did not properly weigh and balance the sentencing 

factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. 

{¶13} “ ‘A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a 

defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is 

unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law.’ ” State v. Maggette, 3d 

Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-06, 2016-Ohio-5554, ¶ 30, quoting State v. Barrera, 3d Dist. 

Putnam No. 12–12–01, 2012–Ohio–3196, ¶ 20. 

{¶14} “ ‘The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the 

authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give 

its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.’ ” 

State v. Castle, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016–CA–16, 2016–Ohio–4974, ¶ 26 quoting, 

State v. King, Clark Nos. 2012–CA–25, 2012–CA–26, 2013–Ohio–2021, ¶ 45. 

However, in exercising its discretion, a trial court must consider the statutory 

policies that apply to every felony offense, including those set out in R.C. 2929.11 

 

3

 In his brief, Shreves relies heavily on State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, to support his 

view of the standard of review this Court should apply on appeal. However, after Kalish was released, the 

legislature altered R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to specifically indicate that on appeal a defendant had to show by clear 

and convincing evidence that his sentence was not supported by the record. Based on the statutory change, 

the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that the Kalish standard is no longer applicable in reviewing sentences, 

and we strongly encourage attorneys to stop citing it for its now-invalid standard of review. See State v. 

Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002. 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-7- 

and R.C. 2929.12. Castle at ¶ 26, citing State v. Leopard, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2010–

CA–87, 2011–Ohio–3864, ¶ 11. 

{¶15} R.C. 2929.11(A) requires trial courts to be guided by the overriding 

principles of felony sentencing. Those purposes are “to protect the public from 

future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender using the 

minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without 

imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.” The court 

must “consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and 

others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the 

victim of the offense, the public, or both.” Id. Revised Code 2929.11(B) further 

provides that “[a] sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to 

achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing * * *, commensurate with 

and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and its impact upon 

the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by 

similar offenders.” 

{¶16} Meanwhile, R.C. 2929.12(B) sets forth nine factors that indicate an 

offender’s conduct is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense. 

Those factors include, inter alia, the physical and mental injury suffered by the 

victim being exacerbated because of the victim’s age, whether the victim suffered 

serious physical or psychological harm, and whether the offender’s relationship to 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-8- 

the victim facilitated the offense. See also State v. Dayton, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-

16-05, 2016-Ohio-7178, ¶ 17. 

{¶17} In this case, when the trial court proceeded to sentence Shreves, it 

stated that in fashioning its sentence it had considered the “purposes and principles 

of felony sentencing under Section 2929.11” and the “criteria set forth in Chapter 

2929 of the Revised Code” such as the “recidivism and seriousness factors[.]”4

 

(June 24, 2016, Tr. at 13). The trial court also stated that it considered “the 

information provided to the Court by the parties and the Presentence 

Investigation[.]” (Id.) 

{¶18} In addition, the trial court made the following findings. 

[T]his really was the worst form of these particular offenses * * * 

and CONSECUTIVE [sic] service is necessary to protect the 

public from future crime and to punish the offender and * * * 

consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness 

of the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender poses to the 

public[.] [The court] * * * also finds that his history, the offender’s 

history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive 

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by 

the offender. 

(Id. at 13-14). 

{¶19} On appeal, Shreves argues that the trial court should have provided 

more specific reasoning as to factors that it considered in sentencing him related to 

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. However, as we have emphasized in prior 

 

4

 The trial court’s judgment entry also states that it explicitly considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-9- 

opinions, where “the trial court explicitly stated that it had considered the [requisite 

statutory] factors * * * it was not required to elaborate upon them so long as the 

record indicates that the trial court considered them and the sentences were within 

the appropriate statutory range.” (Emphasis sic) State v. Dayton, 3d Dist. Union 

No. 14-16-05, 2016-Ohio-7178, ¶ 21, citing State v. Castle, 2d Dist. Clark No. 

2016–CA–16, 2016–Ohio–4974, ¶ 30. 

{¶20} Here, the trial court did explicitly state that it had considered the 

requisite statutes both on the record and in its sentencing entry. The sentences for 

both crimes were also within the statutory range. Thus we need not even proceed 

further. 

{¶21} Nevertheless, the trial court’s sentence was supported by the record 

and Shreves is unable to demonstrate that it was clearly and convincingly contrary 

to law. The presentence investigation indicated that Shreves had a criminal history 

that included a prior Aggravated Robbery, which he served time in prison for, and 

an Assault on a Corrections Officer. The presentence investigation further indicated 

that on the night of the incident the victim, who was only 14, stated she specifically 

told Shreves “no” but that she could not push him off of her because she was on her 

stomach. 

{¶22} Given the trial court’s clear statement of its consideration of the 

requisite statutory factors, the facts narrated, and Shreves’s unequivocal admission 
Case No. 2-16-11 

-10- 

at the change-of-plea hearing, we cannot find that the trial court erred in sentencing 

Shreves.5

 Therefore Shreves’s argument is not well-taken, and his sole assignment 

of error is overruled.6

{¶23} For the foregoing reasons, Shreves’s assignment of error is overruled 

and the judgment of the Auglaize County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur. 

/jlr 

 

5

 This is particularly true given that Shreves agreed that his crimes were not subject to merger and that he 

readily admitted to his crimes, which could potentially have constituted the much more serious crimes he 

was charged with that were ultimately dismissed. 

6

 Although not specifically challenged by Shreves on appeal in his brief, the trial court did clearly make the 

necessary findings for consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) both at the sentencing hearing 

and in its final judgment entry on the matter. Thus even if Shreves did challenge this issue, any such argument 

would not be well-taken, and any related assignment would be overruled.