[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2020-Ohio-4496.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

SANDUSKY COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. S-19-054 

 S-19-055 

 Appellee 

 Trial Court Nos. 18 CR 905 

v. 19 CR 408 

Christina M. Robinson DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: September 18, 2020 

* * * * * 

 Beth A. Tischler, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 Alexis M. Hotz, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Brett A. Klimkowsky, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

 OSOWIK, J. 

{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Christina M. Robinson, appeals the 

December 16, 2019 judgments of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas 

sentencing her to 12 months in prison for the offense of attempted convey prohibited 

items to detention facility, in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2) and 2923.02(A), a felony of 
2.

the fourth degree, in addition to 12 months in prison for the offense of possession of 

drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(a)(c)(2)(A), a felony of the fifth degree and 12 

months in prison for the offense of aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 

2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree, all to run consecutive to the sentence 

imposed in case No. 19 CR 408. 

{¶ 2} Appellant presents two assignments of error: 

1. The Trial Court’s sentence of Christina M. Robinson 

(“Appellant”) violates R.C. 2929.14( C)(4) – and is thus contrary to law – 

insofar as the Trial Court did not make appropriate findings of fact for 

Appellant to be sentenced in a consecutive manner. 

2. The Trial Court’s sentence of Appellant is excessive and contrary 

to Ohio law. 

{¶ 3} We review sentencing challenges under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Butler, 

6th Dist. Wood No. WD-19-011, 2020-Ohio-606. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate 

court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly 

and convincingly finds either of the following: 

(a) 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) The sentence is otherwise contrary to law. 
3.

{¶ 4} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court failed to 

make the appropriate findings required for imposition of consecutive sentences. R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4) mandates that before a trial court can impose multiple prison terms in a 

consecutive manner, the court must find that the consecutive sentence 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, and 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. 

 
4.

{¶ 5} At sentencing, the court made the following statement: 

You know, I don’t doubt that you have some problems, but you’ve

had so many opportunities to address the problems, and you can only go to 

the well so many - - so many times * * * and how many times can we look 

the other way, and I will tell you that you’ve been successful with - - in 

accumulating what I - - appears to me to be the most entries on a criminal 

history that I’ve seen in my 40 plus years on the bench. I counted 90 to 91 

entries * * *. The Court is justifying the consecutive sentences by noting 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), (c), that your criminal conduct dem - - demonstrates 

that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future 

crime, and that these consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the 

seriousness of your conduct. 

{¶ 6} The court failed to make the third finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 

Nevertheless, we have held that the trial court is not required to cite any magic or 

talismanic words when imposing consecutive sentences provided it is clear from the 

record that the trial court engaged in the appropriate analysis. State v. Gessel, 6th Dist. 

Williams No. WM-19-004, 2020-Ohio-403. The record must contain evidence to support 

the trial court’s findings. State v. McKinney, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1033, 2020-Ohio3547. 

{¶ 7} Here, the trial court referenced appellant’s criminal conduct, which the 

record shows included numerous drug offense convictions. Her history also demonstrates 
5.

a repeated failure to abide by court-ordered sanctions aimed at her rehabilitation. 

Therefore, the trial court engaged in an analysis of appellant’s criminal conduct and the 

record supports the trial court’s conclusion that consecutive sentences are necessary to 

protect the public from future crime by the appellant. 

{¶ 8} Appellant’s first assignment of error is found not well-taken and denied. 

{¶ 9} Appellant’s second assignment of error contends that appellant’s sentence is 

excessive and contrary to Ohio law. 

{¶ 10} Appellant does not dispute that the sentences imposed were within the 

statutory range as defined in R.C. 2929.14. She was sentenced to 12 months in prison for 

the offense of attempted convey prohibited items to detention facility, in violation of R.C. 

2921.36(A)(2) and 2923.02(A), a felony of the fourth degree, in addition to 12 months in 

prison for the offense of possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(a)(c)(2)(A), a 

felony of the fifth degree and 12 months in prison for the offense of aggravated 

possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth 

degree. Each of these sentences were within the statutory range. Therefore, the 

sentences imposed on these counts are not contrary to law. 

{¶ 11} However, appellant claims that the trial court did not consider R.C. 2929.11 

and 2929.12. More specifically, appellant argues that the court failed to consider her 

mental health issues and her lifelong addiction struggle and should have fashioned a 

minimum sanction with a lesser restrictive environment that would be more conducive of 

rehabilitation.
6.

{¶ 12} Simply because the court did not balance the factors in the manner 

appellant desires does not mean that the court failed to consider them, or that clear and 

convincing evidence shows that the court’s findings are not supported by the record. 

State v. Butcher, 4th Dist. Athens No. 15CA33, 2017-Ohio-1544. 

{¶ 13} R.C. 2929.11(A) states in relevant part: 

(A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided 

by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes 

of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the 

offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective 

rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court 

determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary 

burden on state or local government resources. To achieve those purposes, 

the sentencing court shall 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. 

{¶ 14} It is obvious that the trial court considered the need for incapacitating 

appellant and deterring appellant from future crime. 

{¶ 15} Appellant does not cite to any specific sections of R.C. 2929.12 that the 

court failed to properly consider. That statute does require the sentencing court to 

consider relevant factors that indicate that the offender is likely to commit future crimes. 
7.

One of those factors that are relevant to this case is specified in R.C. 2929.12(D)(4). That 

section states: 

(4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse 

that is related to the offense, and the offender refuses to acknowledge that 

the offender has demonstrated that pattern, or the offender refuses treatment 

for the drug or alcohol abuse. 

{¶ 16} In this case, appellant has an established history of drug abuse. It is also, 

unfortunately, painfully obvious that she has failed to take advantage of opportunities to 

rehabilitate herself by simply engaging in her court-ordered treatment. 

{¶ 17} Once the trial court considers the statutory factors and purposes of 

sentencing, the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate by clear and convincing 

evidence that the record does not support her sentence. State v. Day, 4th Dist. Adams 

No. 19CA1085, 2019-Ohio-4816. Other than to point out that she has a criminal history 

involving predominantly drug-related offenses compounded by mental health difficulties, 

appellant is unable to meet her burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 

that the record does not support her sentence. She has been given ample opportunity to 

demonstrate her seriousness in addressing her many issues that contribute to her criminal 

actions. 

{¶ 18} Appellant’s second assignment of error is found not well-taken. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 19} We find both of appellant’s assignments of error not well-taken and denied. 
8.

{¶ 20} Based on the foregoing, the December 16, 2019 judgments of the Sandusky 

County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this 

appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. 

Judgments affirmed. 

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

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

Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Christine E. Mayle, J. 

 _______________________________ 

Gene A. Zmuda, 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/.