[Cite as State v. Pompey, 2016-Ohio-4610.] 

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 29, 2016 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alex Scott Havlin, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs. 

MALIK POMPEY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-150479 

 TRIAL NO. B-1405219-A 

O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

DEWINE, Judge. 

{¶1} This is an appeal from sentences imposed following a defendant’s guilty 

pleas to four counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications. Malik Pompey 

argues that the court did not make required findings before sentencing him to 

consecutive sentences for the specifications and that his sentence was disproportionate 

to that received by his codefendants and other similar offenders. We’re not persuaded. 

No findings were required before imposing consecutive sentences for the specifications, 

and the sentences were not otherwise contrary to law. 

I. Background 

{¶2} Mr. Pompey pled guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery with gun 

specifications. The charges stemmed from two armed robberies committed in 

September 2014. One night, Mr. Pompey and two codefendants robbed a Circle K 

convenience store using a sawed-off shotgun. The next night, they used the same 

shotgun to hold up three University of Cincinnati students. 

{¶3} At the sentencing hearing, the state asked for a 20-year aggregate prison 

term, while defense counsel sought a lesser sentence. Counsel suggested that a 12-year 

aggregate term was appropriate because Pompey did not have a criminal record, was 

only 20 years old and was very remorseful for his actions. He noted that offenders who 

had committed similar crimes had received sentences that were less than 20 years. The 

assistant prosecuting attorney conceded that Pompey’s codefendants had received 

shorter sentences but reasoned that Pompey “was the prime mover in these offenses” 

and that he had “committed [the robberies] personally.” 

{¶4} The court settled on an aggregate 18-year sentence. This combined term 

consisted of six-year sentences for each aggravated robbery and three-year sentences for 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3 

each firearm specification. The six-year sentences were all made concurrent, while the 

four specifications were made consecutive to each other and consecutive to the 

concurrent six-year sentences. When imposing the sentences, the court considered 

Pompey’s lack of a criminal record and his genuine remorse along with his failure to 

acknowledge the need for treatment despite having committed the offenses while under 

the influence of drugs. The court also noted “that there was a sawed-off shotgun used in 

connection with this offense, which the defendant provided and the defendant planned 

and motivated his friends to join in this criminal endeavor.” 

II. The Sentences Were Not Contrary to Law 

{¶5} Mr. Pompey’s sole assignment of error is that the court erred when it 

imposed excessive, consecutive sentences. He urges us to reduce his sentences because 

the trial court did not make findings before imposing consecutive sentences for the 

firearm specifications and because his aggregate term is disproportionate to the 15-year 

sentence received by one of his codefendants. 

{¶6} We may modify or vacate Pompey’s sentence only if we “determine[] by 

clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings 

under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. 

Marcum, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-1002, __ N.E.2d __, ¶ 1. See State v. White, 

2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). Mr. Pompey maintains that the court 

failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before ordering that the four 

firearm-specification sentences run consecutively. But R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) applies to 

“multiple prison terms [that] are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple 

offenses”—not penalty-enhancing specifications. See State v. James, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 102604, 2015-Ohio-4987. No findings were required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) 

before imposing consecutive sentences for the specifications. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

{¶7} Instead, the trial court’s imposition of sentences for the firearm 

specifications was governed by R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), which provides that 

[i]f an offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to two or more felonies, if 

one or more of those felonies are * * * aggravated robbery * * * , and if the 

offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a specification of the type 

described under division (B)(1)(a) of this section in connection with two 

or more of the felonies, the sentencing court shall impose on the offender 

the prison term specified under division (B)(1)(a) of this section for each 

of the two most serious specifications of which the offender is convicted 

or to which the offender pleads guilty and, in its discretion, also may 

impose on the offender the prison term specified under that division for 

any or all of the remaining specifications. 

Because Pompey pled guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery along with the 

accompanying gun specifications, the trial court was required to sentence him for at 

least two of the specifications and had the discretion to sentence him for all four. And 

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a), the sentences for the specifications had to be consecutive to 

each other and to the sentences for the underlying felonies. See State v. Isreal, 12th 

Dist. Warren No. CA2011-11-115, 2012-Ohio-4876, ¶ 72. The court did precisely what 

was required by law. 

{¶8} Mr. Pompey contends further that, contrary to R.C. 2929.11(B), his 

aggregate prison term was not “consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes 

committed by similar offenders.” As we have noted, the consistency mandated by R.C. 

2929.11(B) “does not require that identical sentences be imposed for co-defendants.” 

State v. Rowland, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-000592, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2088 (May 

11, 2001). Thus, “[o]ur role in evaluating a sentence challenged for inconsistency is to 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

determine whether the trial court properly considered the factors and guidelines 

contained in the sentencing statutes and whether the record supports the court’s 

findings.” State v. Houston, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130429, 2014-Ohio-3111. Here, it 

is clear from the record that the court considered the appropriate factors and guidelines 

before sentencing Pompey, and as discussed, no findings were required of the court. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶9} The sentences imposed by the trial court were not contrary to law. We 

therefore overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial 

court. 

Judgment affirmed. 

HENDON, P.J., and MOCK, J., concur. 

Please note: 

The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.