[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 Com mon Pleas sentencing her to 12 months in prison for the offense of attemp ted convey prohibited items to detention facility, in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2) and 2923.02(A), a felony of2. the fourth degree, in addition to 12 months in prison for the o ffense of possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(a)(c)(2)(A), a felony of th e fifth degree and 12 months in prison for the offense of aggravated possession of dr ugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree, all to run c onsecutive 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 contra ry 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 co ntrary

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 disp uted 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 Revi sed 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 tri al court failed to make the appropriate findings required for imposition of consec utive sentences. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) mandates that before a trial court can impose mul tiple prison terms in a consecutive manner, the court must find that the consecutive se ntence 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 of fender’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 par t of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or m ore 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 tha t 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 cou nted 90 to 91 entries * * *. The Court is justifying the consecutive sentenc es by noting R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), (c), that your criminal conduct dem - - dem onstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime, and that these consecutive sentences are not disproporti onate to the seriousness of your conduct. {¶ 6} The court failed to make the third finding required by R.C. 292 9.14(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 i t 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 h istory also demonstrates5. 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 s entences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the appellant. {¶ 8} Appellant’s first assignment of error is found not well-taken a nd 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 with in 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 f acility, 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 offe nse 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 rang e. 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 cour t failed to consider her mental health issues and her lifelong addiction struggle and sh ould have fashioned a

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

rehabilitation.6. {¶ 12} Simply because the court did not balance the factors in the man ner appellant desires does not mean that the court failed to consid er them, or that clear and convincing evidence shows that the court’s findings are not sup ported 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 gu ided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overridin g purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crim e 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 unnece ssary burden on state or local government resources. To achieve thos e purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilita ting 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 inca pacitating appellant and deterring appellant from future crime. {¶ 15} Appellant does not cite to any specific sections of R.C. 2929.1 2 that the court failed to properly consider. That statute does require t he sentencing court to

consider relevant factors that indicate that the offender is li kely to commit future crimes.7. One of those factors that are relevant to this case is specifie d 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 ack nowledge that the offender has demonstrated that pattern, or the offender ref uses treatment for the drug or alcohol abuse. {¶ 16} In this case, appellant has an established history of drug abus e. It is also, unfortunately, painfully obvious that she has failed to take ad vantage of opportunities to rehabilitate herself by simply engaging in her court-ordered tr eatment. {¶ 17} Once the trial court considers the statutory factors and purpos es of sentencing, the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate by cl ear 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 men tal 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 gi ven 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 ordere d to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgments affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant 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 Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.