[Cite as State v. Rose , 2021-Ohio-2859.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DENVIL E. ROSE Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : Appellate Case No. 2020-CA-28

Trial Court Case No. 2020-CR-55 (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 20th day of August, 2021.

. . . . . . . . . . . JANE A. NAPIER Atty. Reg. No. 0061426, Assistant Prosecuting At torney, Champaign County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 200 North Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee TRAVIS T. DUNNINGTON, Atty. Reg. No. 0096519, 117 North Main St reet, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J.-2-

{¶ 1} Denvil E. Rose appeals from his conviction following a negotiat ed guilty plea to one count of aggravated drug possession, a second-degree fel ony. {¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Rose challenges the trial cour t’s determination that his sentence was required to be served conse cutively to a prior sentence he was serving. {¶ 3} In exchange for Rose’s guilty plea, the State dismissed several other charges but made no agreement regarding sentencing. The trial court sub sequently sentenced Rose to six to nine years in prison. It also found that the sen tence was required to be served consecutively to a prior sentence Rose was serving for f ailure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. Rose’s only argument on ap peal is that the trial court erred in finding a consecutive sentence mandatory. {¶ 4} Upon review, we see no error in the trial court’s imposition of a mandatory consecutive sentence. Under R.C. 2921.331(D), if an offender is sentenced to prison for third- or fourth-degree felony failure to comply in violation o f R.C. 2921.331(B), “the offender shall serve the prison term consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term imposed upon the offender.” Rose argues that this m andate applies only when a trial court is sentencing an offender for failure to com ply. He maintains that it does not apply to a sentence subsequently imposed in a separate case for a different offense. Therefore, he asserts that the trial court erred in finding its elf obligated to make his sentence for aggravated drug possession consecutive to his earl ier sentence for failure to comply. {¶ 5} Rose’s argument lacks merit. The language of R.C. 2921.331(D) r equires a-3- sentence for failure to comply to be served consecutively to any other sentence. The statute does not limit itself to sentences imposed at the time of the failure-to-comply conviction. Any potential ambiguity in R.C. 2921.331(D) is clar ified by R.C. 2929.14(C)(3), which provides: “If a prison term is imposed for * * * a felony violation of division (B) of section 2921.331 of the Revised Code, the offender shall serve that prison term consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender.” {¶ 6} Here, Rose admits that he previously was sentenced to prison fo r thirddegree-felony failure to comply in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B ). (Appellant’s brief at 5.) That being so, he was required to serve his prison term for fai lure to comply “consecutively to any other prison term * * * previously or subsequently imposed[.]” (Emphasis added) R.C. 2929.14(C)(3). The sentence in the present case was a pris on term imposed subsequent to the prison term for failure to comply. Therefore, the two prison terms were required to be served consecutively. This court has reached the same conclusion when addressing the same issue at least twice before. See State v. White , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28338, 2020-Ohio-5544, ¶ 67 (“Because White was convicted o f failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree fel ony, in [a prior case], the trial court also properly imposed consecutive sentences as required b y statute. See R.C. 2929.14(C)(3); R.C. 2921.331(D).”); State v. McComb , 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2015-CA17, 2016-Ohio-606, ¶ 5, 13-14 (recognizing that a prison senten ce for heroin possession was required to be served consecutively to a prior felony sente nce for failure to comply). {¶ 7} Arguing against mandatory consecutive sentences, Rose relies on State v.

Irwin-Debraux , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28309, 2019-Ohio-5013. In that case, the trial-4- court imposed consecutive sentences for involuntary manslaughte r, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and failure to comply. Consistent with the present cas e, we held that R.C. 2921.331(D) obligated the trial court to order the sentences fo r involuntary manslaughter and grand theft of a motor vehicle to be served consecutively t o the sentence for failure to comply. Id . at ¶ 11. We then held, however, that R.C. 2921.331(D) did not compel the trial court to impose consecutive sentences for involuntary man slaughter and grand theft of a motor vehicle. Although those sentences were required to b e served consecutively to the sentence for failure to comply, R.C. 2929.331(D) did not require them to be served consecutively to one another. Absent consecutive-sentence findi ngs under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), we held that the trial court was required to ord er the sentences for involuntary manslaughter and grand theft of a motor vehicle to be served concurrently to one another but consecutively to the failure-to-comply sentence

. Id . at ¶ 12. Nothing in

Irwin-Debraux is inconsistent with our analysis or conclusion in Rose’s case

. {¶ 8} Finally, we note that the trial court was not required to make consecutivesentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) because a consecutiv e sentence in this case was mandated by statute. State v. Thompson , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28308, 2020- Ohio-211, ¶ 16 (recognizing that consecutive-sentence findings are not required when a consecutive sentence is mandated by law). {¶ 9} Rose’s assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of th e Champaign County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

DONOVAN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.-5-

Copies sent to: Jane A. Napier Travis T. Dunnington Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio