[Cite as State v. Edwards, 2015-Ohio-136.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 OTTAWA COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-14-021 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 13-CR-179 

v. 

Travis Edwards DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: January 16, 2015 

* * * * * 

 Mark Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 Joseph H. Gerber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Edward L. Schimmel, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

JENSEN, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Travis Edwards, appeals the May 22, 2014 judgment 

of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to two consecutive 18-

month prison terms following his convictions of attempted robbery and attempted 

intimidation of a witness. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 
2. 

I. Background 

{¶ 2} On December 5, 2013, Edwards, along with several co-defendants, entered a 

home occupied by James Eden, an acquaintance of Edwards, who was there with his 

father, also named James, and several minor children. The intruders assaulted both men 

in front of the children, held a knife to one of the children’s throats, demanded money, 

and threatened additional injury to the victims. They smashed the victims’ cell phone to 

prevent them from calling the police, and they warned them not to call the authorities or 

they would die. 

{¶ 3} Edwards was indicted on charges of burglary, in violation of R.C. 

2911.12(B) (Count One); aggravated burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) 

(Counts Two and Three); aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) (Counts 

Four through Seven); and intimidation of a witness, in violation of R.C. 2921.04(B) 

(Counts Eight through Eleven). 

{¶ 4} On March 17, 2014, the state moved to amend counts four and eight of the 

indictment to attempted robbery and attempted intimidation of a witness, respectively, 

and to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment in exchange for Edwards entering a 

plea of guilty. Edwards withdrew his not guilty pleas and entered pleas of guilty to 

amended counts four and eight. The case proceeded to sentencing on May 22, 2014. 

After considering a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report, an oral statement by 

Edwards’ counsel, and an oral and written statement from Eden, the trial court sentenced 

 
3. 

Edwards to 18-months’ incarceration on each conviction, to be served consecutively, and 

restitution totaling $570.61. Edwards appealed and he assigns the following error for our 

review: 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING A MAXIMUM 

SENTENCE AND RUNNING THOSE SENTENCES ON THE TWO 

CHARGES CONSECUTIVELY. 

II. Standard of Review 

{¶ 5} As an appellate court, we review felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2). State v. Goings, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1103, 2014-Ohio-2322, ¶ 20. 

We may only increase, modify, or vacate and remand a judgment if we clearly and 

convincingly find that: (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings 

under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14, * * *,” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise 

contrary to law.” Id., citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “Notably, we do not review the trial 

court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Washington,

6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1201, 2014-Ohio-2565, ¶ 6. 

III. Analysis 

{¶ 6} Edwards argues that consecutive sentences were not warranted in this case 

because “the record does not portray the nature and extent of any physical harm suffered 

by the victim(s), much less that the physical harm caused was so great or unusual as to 

distinguish this case from other attempted robberies (F-4) or attempted intimidation of a 

 
4. 

witness (F-4) generally.” He claims that his co-defendants—not he— had engaged in the 

acts of violence and that the victim made this clear at the sentencing hearing when he 

described that Edwards had actually apologized as the crimes were being committed. 

Edwards also argues that he “did not commit the worst form of the offense in this case,” 

thus maximum sentences were not warranted. 

{¶ 7} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides as follows: 

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 the court finds that the consecutive service 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 
5. 

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. 

{¶ 8} At the May 22, 2014 sentencing hearing, the trial court stated: 

The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect 

the public from future crime, to punish the offender, and are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the 

danger the offender poses to the public. 

The Court also finds that the two offenses were committed as a part 

of one or more courses of conduct and the harm caused by the two 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. 

These findings were also reflected in the court’s sentencing judgment entry. 

{¶ 9} Edwards complains that the trial court failed to explain why it reached these 

conclusions. He contends that sufficient reasons must be given to support these statutory 

findings. However, the Ohio Supreme Court recently held in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio 

St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus, that “[i]n order to impose 

 
6. 

consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings 

mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings 

into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.” 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 10} The trial court made the required findings at the sentencing hearing and 

incorporated them into its sentencing judgment entry. It committed no error in imposing 

consecutive sentences. 

{¶ 11} Edwards next argues that the trial court failed to identify which R.C. 

2929.12 factor supported its decision to impose maximum sentences. He claims that 

maximum sentences were not warranted and he contends that the court failed to take into 

account that: (1) he had no prior criminal record; (2) he was remorseful; (3) he did not 

directly inflict physical harm; and (4) he attempted to protect the victims in this case. 

{¶ 12} Reviewing Edwards’ sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we observe that 

under R.C. 2929.14(A)(4), a fourth degree felony is punishable by a prison term of six, 

seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, or 

eighteen months. The crimes of which Edwards was convicted are fourth-degree felonies 

and the trial court imposed 18-month sentences, thus Edwards’ sentences were not 

contrary to law. 

{¶ 13} We next consider whether the trial court’s findings lack support in the 

record. We recently recognized in State v. McClanahan, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-14- 

 
7. 

024, 2014-Ohio-5597, ¶ 15, that while the sentencing court “shall consider” the factors 

set forth in R.C. 2929.12, it “is not obligated to give a detailed explanation of how it 

algebraically applied each seriousness and recidivism factor to the offender. Indeed, no 

specific recitation is required. * * * Merely stating that the court considered the statutory 

factors is enough.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) 

{¶ 14} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court read directly from the PSI 

report which summarized Edwards’ offenses. That report described that Edwards and his 

accomplices forced their way into Eden’s home at 3:00 in the morning. They violently 

assaulted the two men in the children’s presence, threatened to kill them, and held a knife 

to the throat of one of the children. They demanded money, threatened to rape “and stuff 

objects into the rectum of one of the victims,” and warned the victims “not to call 

authorities or they would die.” They smashed their cell phones and a flat-screen 

television. While the court recognized that Edwards’ participation may not have been to 

the same degree as his co-defendants’, it quoted the victim in observing, “Everybody 

chose to be there and nobody chose to leave.” The transcript of the sentencing hearing 

and the sentencing judgment entry demonstrate that the trial court performed the required 

analysis and that its findings are supported by the record. 

{¶ 15} We find Edwards’ sole assignment of error not well-taken. 

 
8. 

IV. Conclusion 

{¶ 16} We find Edwards’ assignment of error not well-taken and affirm the May 

22, 2014 judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas. The costs of this 

appeal are assessed to appellant under App.R. 24. 

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 

Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J. 

_______________________________ 

James D. Jensen, 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.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.