[Cite as State v. McClenton, 2017-Ohio-8361.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2017-A-0019

 - vs - : 

GREGORY L. MCCLENTON, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 

CR 00653. 

Judgment: Reversed and remanded. 

Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 

44047-1092 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Patricia J. Smith, 206 South Meridian Street, Suita A, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For 

Defendant-Appellant). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Gregory L. McClenton, appeals the imposition of a consecutive 

sentence with an unrelated case following his conviction for assault. As the trial court 

failed to make necessary findings for consecutive sentences, we reverse and remand 

for resentencing. 

{¶2} In 2015, appellant was convicted of resisting arrest and failure to comply 
 2

with a police officer’s signal in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Initially, 

he was placed on community control. After being found guilty of violating the terms of 

community control, he was sentenced to a three-year prison term. 

{¶3} While incarcerated in the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, appellant 

exited his housing unit without permission. A corrections officer was dispatched to find 

him. After locating appellant at a recreational facility, the officer coaxed him to return to 

the housing unit. But, as they were walking toward the unit, appellant was disrespectful 

to the officer and would not follow his directives. Accordingly, before taking appellant to 

the officer’s station in the unit, the officer conducted a pat-down search. 

{¶4} Appellant was ordered to stand still with his hands on a wall. As the 

officer began the search, appellant tried to turn around and face him, but the officer was 

able to regain control by placing his hand on appellant’s back. When the officer tried to 

resume the search, appellant removed his hands from the wall, made a fist with his right 

hand, and threw a punch. The officer easily blocked the punch and pinned appellant 

against the wall. Appellant was now facing the officer and grabbed the officer in the 

face/throat area. Since the seriousness of the situation had escalated, a second 

corrections officer immediately sprayed a substance in appellant’s face, causing him to 

release his hold on the first officer. 

{¶5} Appellant was indicted on one count of assault, a third-degree felony 

pursuant to R.C. 2903.13(A) & (C)(3). Ultimately, appellant pleaded guilty to assault. In 

exchange, the state recommended that his sentence be limited to twenty-four months. 

{¶6} The case immediately proceeded to sentencing. In directly addressing the 

trial court, appellant said that he was confused during the entire episode leading to the 
 3

assault, and that he made a good faith effort to comply with the officer’s orders. His trial 

counsel also asserted that appellant is an Iraqi War veteran who possibly suffers from 

PTSD, and has previously been diagnosed with schizophrenic disorder. Counsel also 

noted that, although appellant received medication for his schizophrenia while he was 

an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, he had not received any treatment at 

the Lake Erie Correctional Institution. The state responded that appellant has been 

convicted of five criminal offenses between 2009 and 2015, and that he has a history of 

refusing to comply with orders of police officers. 

{¶7} At the close of the hearing, the trial court accepted the state’s sentencing 

recommendation and ordered appellant to serve a twenty-four month prison term 

consecutive to the three-year term stemming from the Cuyahoga County case. 

Appellant timely appeals raising one assignment of error: 

{¶8} “The trial court erred by sentencing the appellant to serve consecutive 

sentences without submitting adequate reasons in support pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C) 

and specifically considering inaccurate factors.” 

{¶9} In contesting the imposition of consecutive sentences, appellant primarily 

argues that the trial court failed to give adequate weight to certain facts tending to show 

that the nature of his conduct was not so serious as to justify consecutive terms. 

However, it is unnecessary to address appellant’s specific arguments because the trial 

court’s failure to make a required statutory finding for imposition of consecutive prison 

terms warrants reversal. 

{¶10} As assault is not one of the six crimes governed by R.C. 2929.14(C)(2), 

the parties do not dispute that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) governs. 
 4

{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court “may” sentence an offender 

to consecutive prison terms if it finds that: (1) such terms are “necessary to protect the 

public from future crime or to punish the offender”; (2) such terms “are not 

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

offender poses to the public”; and (3) one of three alternative factors exist. The three 

alternative factors are: 

{¶12} “(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, and 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release 

control for a prior offense. 

{¶13} “(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. 

{¶14} “(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that 

consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the 

offender.” 

{¶15} During the sentencing, the trial court justified consecutive sentences as 

follows: 

{¶16} “Because this offense occurred while the defendant was an inmate in a 

state prison facility, and that the victim was a corrections officer at the prison, the Court 

finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes 
 5

and to punish the offender, and that a consecutive sentence would not be 

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

defendant poses to the public.” 

{¶17} The foregoing findings satisfy the first two criteria. But, as to the third 

requirement of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court does not expressly state which of the 

three alternative factors it is proceeding under. Instead, the trial court only notes that 

appellant was an inmate when he committed the assault and that the victim was a 

corrections officer. 

{¶18} The trial court did not find that the harm caused by the multiple offenses is 

so great that the imposition of a single prison term is inadequate to reflect the 

seriousness of the criminal acts or make reference to appellant’s criminal history. 

Moreover, the trial court’s reference to the corrections officer as the victim and 

appellant’s status as a prison inmate fails to satisfy subsection (a). 

{¶19} In State v. Bittner, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-04-1240, 2005-Ohio-5251, the 

defendant was found guilty of disrupting public services for damaging a sprinkler head 

in a state prison. The court imposed a consecutive sentence, in part, because the 

defendant was serving a prison term at the facility when he committed that crime. The 

Sixth Appellate District concluded that defendant’s status as an inmate is not sufficient 

to satisfy alternative (a). Id. at ¶21-31. 

{¶20} Alternative (a) is satisfied when a defendant is: (1) awaiting trial or 

sentencing on another offense; (2) under a sanction pursuant to R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, 

or 2929.18; or (3) subject to post-release control. The three statutes under the second 

scenario govern the imposition of residential sanctions; nonresidential sanctions, such 
 6

as a drug treatment program; and financial sanctions, none of which are satisfied. 

Neither appellant’s status as inmate nor that his victim was a corrections officer satisfies 

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

{¶21} The trial court’s findings are insufficient to fulfill any of the alternative 

factors. To this extent, consecutive sentences are contrary to law. See R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2). 

{¶22} Appellant’s sole assignment of error has merit. The judgment of the 

Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and the case is remanded for 

resentencing. 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., 

COLLEEN MARY O’TOLLE, J., 

concur.