[Cite as State v. F.F., 2019-Ohio-455.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 No. 107013 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

F. F.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-17-620306-A 

BEFORE: Kilbane, A.J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Celebrezze, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 7, 2019 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John T. Castele 

565 W. Bagley Road 

Berea, Ohio 44017 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Fallon Radigan 

Geoffrey S. Minter 

Assistant County Prosecutors 

The Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, F.F., appeals the trial court’s imposition of consecutive 

sentences. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate his consecutive sentence and remand the 

case to the trial court for the limited purpose of complying with the requirements of R.C. 

2929.14(C) for the imposition of consecutive sentences. 

{¶2} In August 2017, F.F. was charged in a 17-count indictment. The charges 

included ten counts of gross sexual imposition (“GSI”), six counts of kidnapping, and one 

misdemeanor count of importuning. F.F. was also indicted on sexually violent predator 

specifications and sexually motivated specifications. 

{¶3} The indictment lists two victims. The first is F.F.’s daughter, Y.F., born on 

December 5, 1985, with offense dates from 1997 through 1998. The second is Y.F.’s daughter 

(F.F.’s granddaughter), Y.R., born on April 20, 2005, with offense dates from 2011 through 

2017. 
{¶4} On January 19, 2018, under a plea agreement, F.F. pled guilty to ten counts of GSI 

and a single misdemeanor count of importuning. In exchange, the state dismissed the six counts 

of kidnapping and the attached specifications. 

{¶5} At sentencing, the trial court imposed a prison term of four years on the two GSI 

counts and six months on the importuning count as they pertain to F.F.’s daughter, Y.F. The 

trial court ordered F.F. to serve those sentences concurrently. The trial court imposed a prison 

term of four years on the eight GSI counts pertaining to F.F.’s granddaughter, Y.R. The trial 

court ordered F.F. to serve those counts concurrently. The trial court ordered F.F. to serve the 

separate sentences imposed for each victim consecutively for a total of eight years in prison. 

{¶6} F.F. now appeals, assigning the following error for our review. 

Assignment of Error 

The trial court erred in sentencing [F.F.] to consecutive sentences without first 

making the proper statutory findings on the record and was contrary to law. 

 

Consecutive Sentences 

{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, F.F. argues that the trial court failed to make the 

findings required for the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 

{¶8} We review consecutive sentences using the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08. 

State v. Perry, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104751, 2018-Ohio-1760, citing State v. Wells, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga Nos. 99305, 99306, and 99307, 2013-Ohio-3809, ¶ 11, citing State v. Venes, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 10. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides 

two grounds for an appellate court to overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the 

appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly finds that “the record does not support 
the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); or (2) the sentence is “otherwise 

contrary to law.” Venes at ¶ 11. 

{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), in order to impose consecutive sentences, the 

trial court must find that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future 

crime or to punish the offender, 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 that 

at least one of the following also applies: 

(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 

postrelease 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. 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 

{¶10} The court must make the statutory findings as stated above at the sentencing 

hearing and incorporate those findings into its sentencing entry. See State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio 

St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus. 

{¶11} Moreover, Bonnell holds that the trial court must make the statutory findings on the 

record before imposing consecutive sentences on a defendant. State v. Williams, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 106570, 2018-Ohio-4426, citing Bonnell at ¶ 28 (“[T]he record must contain a 

basis upon which a reviewing court can determine that the trial court made the findings required 

by R.C. 2929.14(C)(2) before it imposed consecutive sentences.”). 
{¶12} In the instant case, at the outset, the trial court appropriately outlined the principles 

and purposes of felony sentencing. In so doing, the trial court stated: 

[B]efore I impose a sentence here, I always talk about what the purposes and 

principles of sentencing are. The sentence I impose must comply with these 

purposes and principles. The overriding purpose is to punish you, protect the 

public from future crimes by you and others using the minimum sanctions that the 

Court determines accomplishes the purposes without imposing unnecessary 

burden on state or local government resources. 

The sentence I impose here should be commensurate with and not be demeaning 

to the seriousness of your conduct, its impact on the victims and consistent with 

sentences for similar crimes by similar offenders. 

{¶13} Prior to imposing the consecutive sentences, the trial court stated: 

I believe that consecutive sentences are necessary here, and I am going to tell you 

why. I believe consecutive sentences are necessary to punish you. It is not 

disproportionate, and I find that the harm to the two victims is so great or unusual 

that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of your conduct. 

Further, I believe that these crimes violate your own daughter and granddaughter. 

The fact that it is at first your daughter and then your granddaughter. I believe 

due to the harm that was caused to these two, consecutive sentences are 

appropriate to serve in this matter, and it is necessary to protect the public. 

{¶14} The above excerpt embodies two of the three required findings to impose 

consecutive sentences. First, the trial court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to 

punish F.F. Second, the trial court found that the harm to F.F.’s daughter and granddaughter 

was so great that a single term would demean the seriousness of F.F.’s conduct. However, as to 

the third, the trial court made only a passing reference that the sentence is not disproportionate. 

Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court did not find that consecutive sentences are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of F.F.’s conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. 

Because the trial court failed to make all the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C), the imposition of 

consecutive sentences was contrary to law and must be vacated. 
{¶15} Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶16} Judgment reversed and remanded. We remand the case to the trial court for the 

limited purpose of considering whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under R.C. 

2929.14(C), and if so, to make the necessary findings. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special 

mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into 

execution 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 MARY EILEEN KILBANE, 

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR 
.