[Cite as State v. Burnsworth , 2020-Ohio-5365.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HURON COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. H-20-002 Appellee Trial Court No. CRI 2019-0571

v. Thomas Marion Burnsworth, Jr. DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: November 20, 2020

* * * * * James Joel Sitterly, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, and Melissa A. Angst, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee

. Sarah A. Nation, for appellant.

* * * * * MAYLE, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Thomas M. Burnsworth, Jr., appeals the January 10, 2 020 judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of ten years following his conviction on two counts of sexual battery. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.2. I. Background {¶ 2} On June 28, 2019, Thomas M. Burnsworth, Jr., was indicted on on e count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and (B), a first-deg ree felony (Count 1); one count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and (B), a fir st-degree felony (Count 2); one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907. 05(A)(1) and (C)(1), a fourth-degree felony (Count 3); three counts of gross sexual im position in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and (C)(2), each a third-degree felony (Coun ts 4, 5, and 7); one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(B) and (C)(2), a third-degree felony (Count 6); and two counts of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(1)(B), each a second-degree felony (Counts 8 and 9). The conduct givi ng rise to the charges occurred over a three-year period. The victim of each count wa s Burnsworth’s stepsister. Burnsworth was appointed counsel and appeared before the trial court on July 17, 2019. He entered a not guilty plea to all counts. {¶ 3} On November 12, 2019, Burnsworth appeared for a final pretrial. The trial court was advised that appellant and the state had entered into a plea agreement under which appellant would plead guilty to the sexual battery charge s alleged in Counts 8 and 9 and the state would request dismissal of all remaining counts . Burnsworth then entered a guilty plea in accordance with the agreement. On January 8, 2020, the trial court sentenced Burnsworth to a mandatory five-year prison term on ea ch count. The trial court ordered the sentences imposed to be served consecutively for an aggregate prison sentence of ten years. The trial court also imposed mandatory postrelease control for a3. term of five years and ordered appellant to pay all costs. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts at the state’s request and its judgment entry was journalized the following day. {¶ 4} Burnsworth timely appeals and asserts the following error for o ur review: 1. The trial court failed to give proper consideration to the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.14 for consecutive se ntences in the sentencing of the appellant. II. Law and Analysis {¶ 5} We review felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Goings , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1103, 2014-Ohio-2322, ¶ 20. We may increa se, modify, or vacate and remand a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences only if we clearly and convincingly find that: (1) “the record does not support the s entencing 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). {¶ 6} Burnsworth argues that the trial court’s order to serve his sen tences consecutively is contrary to law because the trial court failed to make any statements supporting the necessary findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to i mpose consecutive sentences. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides as follows: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convict ions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to ser ve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive ser vice is4. 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 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. {¶ 7} This statute requires the trial court to make three statutory f indings before imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Beasley , 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-493, 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 252; State v. Bonnell , 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 26. It must find (1) that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public or to punish the offender; (2) that consecutive sentence s are not disproportionate to5. the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger tha t the offender poses to the public; and (3) that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) is appl icable. Beasley at ¶ 252. “[T]he trial court must make the requisite findings both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ¶ 253, citing Bonnell at ¶ 37. A trial court’s failure to make the necessary findings under R.C. 2929. 14(C)(4) renders the imposition of consecutive sentences contrary to law. See State v. Bonnell , 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37; State v. Kubat , 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-13-046, 2015-Ohio-4062, ¶ 35. In addition, the record must contain evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Bonnell at ¶ 29, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). {¶ 8} Burnsworth concedes that the trial court made the necessary fin dings at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those findings in its judgm ent entry. He argues, however, that the trial court’s findings were contrary to law b ecause it did not “make any further statements justifying the consecutive sentence.” Burns worth’s argument suggests that the trial court must explain its R.C. 2929.14(C) findings when imposing consecutive sentences. This is incorrect. We previously held that “[w]hil e the sentencing court is required to make findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before impos ing consecutive sentences, it is not required to give reasons explaining the fi ndings.” State v. Green , 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-16-010, 2017-Ohio-45 ¶ 11. {¶ 9} Here, there is no dispute that the trial court made the proper findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those findings into its jud gment entry. Thus, the6. only question for us to answer is whether the record contains e vidence to support its findings. We find that it does. {¶ 10} At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor stated that Burnswort h began abusing his stepsister in 2014 when he was 19 years old and his stepsister was approximately 9 or 10 years old. “It began as a sexual contact by having the defendant touch the victim and the victim’s genitalia then progressed to victim having to touch the defendant’s genitalia.” The abuse then intensified over the ye ars. The prosecutor stated that Burnsworth admitting that he “insert[ed] his fingers into the victim’s vagina on repeated occasions.” The abuse was discovered when a family me mber observed Burnsworth “massaging [the victim’s] vagina out in public.” Bu rnsworth’s attorney did not dispute the prosecutor’s recitation of facts. And, as the trial court noted, the victim “has suffered serious consequences as a result” and is going th rough counseling to resolve resulting “psychological issues.” {¶ 11} We find that this record supports the trial court’s findings, a s stated at the sentencing hearing and incorporated into its judgment entry, th at (1) consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime s or to adequately punish Burnsworth; (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of Burnsworth’s conduct or the danger that he poses to the public, and (3) at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by those were so great that no single prison senten ce for the offenses committed here would adequately reflect the seriousness of Burn sworth’s conduct, and7. Burnsworth’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that cons ecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes by Burnswort h. {¶ 12} In conclusion, the trial court made the findings required by R. C. 2929.14(C)(4), and its findings are supported by the record. Bonnell at ¶ 29. Accordingly, Burnsworth’s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.

III. Conclusion {¶ 13} We find Burnsworth’s assignment of error not well-taken. We, t herefore, affirm the January 10, 2020 judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas. Burnsworth is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R.24.

Judgment 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.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ________________________

_______ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J.

_______________________________ Christine E. Mayle, 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/.