[Cite as State v. Noble, 2014-Ohio-5485.]

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LOGAN COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-14-06 

 v. 

JUSTIN DYLAN NOBLE, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. CR13-07-0178 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: December 15, 2014 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Natalie J. Bahan for Appellant 

William T. Goslee for Appellee 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-2- 

ROGERS, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Justin Noble, appeals the judgment of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Logan County convicting him of complicity to grand theft of 

a motor vehicle, complicity to theft, theft of a motor vehicle, and possessing 

criminal tools and sentencing him to an 18-month prison sentence. On appeal, 

Noble argues that the trial court erred in running his 18-month sentence 

consecutive to a separate 10-year prison sentence he is serving out of Clinton 

County. Noble contends that the trial court erred by failing to make the statutorily 

required findings and by imposing the maximum sentence. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s judgment. 

{¶2} On June 27, 2013, a complaint was filed in the Bellefontaine 

Municipal Court charging Noble with theft of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 

2919.02(A)(1)(5), a felony of the fourth degree. Subsequently, Noble was bound 

over to the Court of Common Pleas of Logan County and was released on his own 

recognizance. 

{¶3} On July 9, 2013, the Logan County Grand Jury indicted Noble on two 

counts of complicity to grand theft of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 

2923.03(A) and 2913.02(A)(1)(5), felonies of the fourth degree; one count of 

complicity to theft in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A), 2913.02(A)(1), and 

2913.71(A), a felony of the fifth degree; 12 counts of complicity to theft in 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-3- 

violation of R.C. 2923.03(A) and 2913.02(A)(1), misdemeanors of the first 

degree; one count of complicity to criminal damaging or endangering in violation 

of R.C. 2923.03(A) and 2909.06(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the second degree; and 

one count of complicity to grand theft in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A) and 

2913.02(A)(1)/(B)(4), a felony of the third degree. On September 11, 2013, the 

State filed an amended indictment and charged Noble with theft of a motor vehicle 

in violation of R.C. 2913.02, a felony of the fourth degree; and one count of 

possession of criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A), a felony of the fifth 

degree. The indictment arose from Noble’s alleged participation in a string of 

break-ins throughout Logan County. 

{¶4} While Noble was released on his own recognizance and awaiting trial 

in this matter, he allegedly participated in another string of break-ins from July 9 

to July 20, 2013. The break-ins occurred in Clinton, Greene, Warren, and 

Highland Counties. Noble’s conduct in Clinton County resulted in the return of an 

indictment with more than 50 counts. Noble subsequently pled guilty to 35 

separate offenses with 35 separate victims. As a result of his guilty plea, Noble 

received a 10-year prison sentence out of Clinton County in Case No. 2013-5229. 

{¶5} On February 5, 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement, Noble entered 

guilty pleas to counts I (complicity to grand theft of a motor vehicle), III 

(complicity to theft), XVIII (theft of a motor vehicle), and XIX (possession of 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-4- 

criminal tools). The State dismissed the remaining counts of the amended 

indictment. 

{¶6} On February 7, 2014, the trial court sentenced Noble to an 18-month 

prison sentence for Counts I and XVIII, and a 12-month prison sentence for 

Counts III and XIX. The court ordered that the prison terms run concurrently for a 

total prison term of 18-months. However, the court found that the 18-month 

prison term should run consecutive to Noble’s 10-year prison sentence he received 

for Case No. 2013-5229 out of Clinton County. On March 28, 2014, the trial court 

issued a judgment entry journalizing Noble’s conviction and sentence. 

{¶7} Noble timely appealed this judgment, presenting the following 

assignment of error for our review. 

Assignment of Error 

THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF 

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, THE TRIAL COURT DID 

NOT MAKE THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS NECESSARY TO 

SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE 

SENTENCES, AND THE SENTENCE IS CLEARLY AND 

CONVINCINGLY CONTRARY TO LAW. 

{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Noble argues that the trial court erred 

by imposing a maximum and consecutive sentences and by failing to make the 

statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). We disagree. 

 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-5- 

Maximum Sentence 

{¶9} Trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the 

statutory range. State v. Saldana, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-12-09, 2013-Ohio-1122, 

¶ 20. Since Noble was convicted of fourth and fifth degree felonies, the relevant 

prison sentence range is between six and eighteen months for a felony of the 

fourth degree and between six and twelve months for a felony of the fifth degree. 

R.C. 2929.14(A)(4), (5). “A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal 

absent a defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence 

is unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Barrera, 3d 

Dist. Putnam No. 12-12-01, 2012-Ohio-3196, ¶ 20. Clear and convincing 

evidence is that “which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief 

or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio 

St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. An appellate court should not, 

however, substitute its judgment for that of the trial court because the trial court is 

in a better position to judge the defendant’s chances of recidivism and determine 

the effects of the crime on the victim. State v. Watkins, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-

04-08, 2004-Ohio-4809, ¶ 16. 

{¶10} R.C. Chapter 2929 governs sentencing. R.C. 2929.11 provides, in 

pertinent part, that the “overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the 

public from future crime and to punish the offender.” R.C. 2929.11(A). In 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-6- 

advancing these purposes, sentencing courts are instructed to “consider the need 

for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future 

crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the 

offense, the public, or both.” Id. Meanwhile, R.C. 2929.11(B) states that felony 

sentences must be “commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of 

the offender's conduct and its impact upon the victim” and also be consistent with 

sentences imposed in similar cases. In accordance with these principles, the trial 

court must consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12(B)-(E) relating to the 

seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the likelihood of the offender’s 

recidivism. R.C. 2929.12(A). However, the trial court is not required to make 

specific findings of its consideration of the factors. State v. Kincade, 3d Dist. 

Wyandot No. 16–09–20, 2010–Ohio–1497, ¶ 8. 

{¶11} Here, the trial court sentenced Noble to 18 months for his fourth 

degree felonies and 12 months for his fifth degree felonies, which fall within the 

statutory range for fourth and fifth degree felonies. While the trial court did not 

state on the record that it considered the required statutory factors at the 

sentencing hearing, it made clear in its judgment entry that it did consider R.C. 

2929.11 and 2929.12. After reviewing the record, we cannot find that the trial 

court erred in imposing this sentence. Although the record does not indicate that 

Noble’s offenses were more serious than others, it does reveal that he is at a high 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-7- 

risk of recidivism. In addition to the Presentence Investigation Report indicating 

that Noble was a “very high risk” for recidivism, a finding that he is likely to 

commit future crimes is also supported by several statutory factors under R.C. 

2929.12(D). Specifically, Noble has an extensive criminal record, R.C. 

2929.12(D)(2); he has failed to conform his conduct to the law despite previously 

being adjudicated a delinquent child, R.C. 2929.12(D)(3); he has failed to 

adequately seek treatment for his drug use, R.C. 2929.12(D)(4); and he has not 

offered remorse for his crimes, R.C. 2929.12(D)(5). In light of the extensive 

evidence suggesting the likelihood of Noble’s recidivism, we find no error in the 

trial court’s imposition of a maximum sentence. 

Consecutive Sentences 

{¶12} The revisions to the felony sentencing statutes under H.B. 86 now 

require a trial court to make specific findings on the record, as set forth in R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4), when imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Hites, 3d Dist. 

Hardin No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 11. Revised Code 2929.14(C)(4) now 

provides: 

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: 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-8- 

(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 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. 

{¶13} When imposing consecutive sentences, Crim.R. 32(A)(4) provides 

that “a trial court must state the required findings as part of the sentencing hearing, 

and by doing so it affords notice to the offender and to defense counsel.” State v. 

Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 30. Further, the court should 

also include its statutory findings in the sentencing entry because a court speaks 

through its journal. Id. at ¶ 29, citing State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-

Ohio-1533, ¶ 47. However, a trial court is not required to give a “talismanic 

incantation” of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), nor is it required to state reasons that support 

its finding. Bonnell at ¶ 37. 

{¶14} At Noble’s sentencing hearing, the court stated: 

Court finds that a consecutive sentence between the two counties is 

necessary to protect the public, to punish the defendant, and that 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-9- 

such finding is not disproportionate. Court finds that in Logan 

County the harm was so great or unusual that a single term does not 

adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. The court finds 

that defendant’s criminal history shows that consecutive terms are 

needed to protect the public. 

Sentencing Tr., p. 20. Thus, the trial court made the three statutorily required 

findings. First, the court found that a consecutive sentence was necessary to 

protect the public and to punish Noble. It also found that the sentence was not 

disproportionate to the crime. Lastly, the court found that Noble’s criminal history 

demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public.1

 

{¶15} On appeal, Noble argues that these findings are not supported on the 

record. He argues that he does not have a significant criminal history because his 

convictions in Case No. 2013-5229 from Clinton County were his first adult 

felony convictions and he was only 19-years old at the time. However, Noble fails 

to acknowledge that he has five separate cases from juvenile court, and that his 

“first adult felony convictions” were for 24 different felonies with 24 separate 

victims. In the same case, he also pled guilty to 11 first degree misdemeanor 

charges. Clearly, Noble’s time spent in juvenile court did not deter him from 

committing future crimes as a 19-year old. 

 

1

 We also note that the trial court made another finding that Noble’s conduct resulted in a great or unusual 

harm but failed to find that the offenses were committed as part of Noble’s course of criminal conduct. 

However, because the trial court properly made a finding pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), it does not 

matter to our analysis. 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-10- 

{¶16} Noble also argues that consecutive sentences are disproportionate to 

the offenses he committed. However, Noble does not explain why his sentences 

are disproportionate, either by citing to the sentences of his codefendants or other 

defendants in similar cases. We note that Noble was originally indicted on 17 

different counts in this case, and pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed 

all but four counts. Further, Noble was originally indicted on over 50 counts in 

Clinton County, and Noble eventually pled guilty to 35 counts. Noble’s criminal 

conduct is extensive and running his 18-month sentence in this case to his prison 

sentence in Case No. 2013-5229, was not disproportionate to the offenses he 

committed. 

{¶17} Noble states that “there is simply nothing in the record to indicate 

that this was anything other than a bunch of kids out after dark breaking into cars 

stealing spare change, cd’s and the like, and ultimately, driving away in a car that 

was vulnerable to theft.” (Appellant’s Br., p. 7). It is apparent from this statement 

that Noble lacks any accountability for his actions and his failure to show any 

remorse supports the trial court’s conclusion that Noble is a danger to the public 

and is likely to recidivate. See State v. Upkins, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-13-02, 

2013-Ohio-3986, ¶ 22. 

{¶18} Lastly, Noble contends that he is being punished “twice for the same 

behavior.” (Appellant’s Br., p. 7). While certainly both trial courts considered all 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-11- 

of Noble’s criminal history when imposing his sentence, it is what they were 

statutorily required to do. Further, Noble is not being punished twice for the same 

behavior, but being punished twice for different sets of crimes that happened on 

different dates, and in different locations. Noble also claims that he likely 

received a longer sentence in Clinton County because that court was aware of his 

pending charges in Logan County. We cannot find that this argument is supported 

by the record. Indeed, it appears that the court in Clinton County was rather 

lenient toward Noble. For example, Noble pled guilty to five separate counts of 

burglary in Clinton County, facing a maximum sentence of eight years for each 

count, a total of 40 years in prison. The sentencing court in Clinton County did 

not impose the maximum sentence, but instead sentenced Noble to a five-year 

prison term and ran his burglary convictions concurrently to one another. 

{¶19} Accordingly, we find that the imposition of maximum and 

consecutive sentences was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. 

Sentencing Entry 

{¶20} Albeit making the statutorily required findings at the sentencing 

hearing, the trial court failed to incorporate these findings in its sentencing entry. 

Pursuant to Bonnell, a trial court must not only make the statutory findings at the 

sentencing hearing, but incorporate those findings into its sentencing entry. 

Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. However, Bonnell also stated that “[a] trial 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-12- 

court’s inadvertent failure to incorporate the statutory findings in the sentencing 

entry after properly making those findings at the sentencing hearing does not 

render the sentence contrary to law; rather, such a clerical mistake may be 

corrected by the court through a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect what actually 

occurred in open court.” Id. at ¶ 30, citing State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 

2012-Ohio-111, ¶ 15. In this case, the court made the requisite findings in open 

court but did not incorporate those findings into its sentencing entry. Therefore, 

we sustain Noble’s sole assignment of error only to the extent that the trial court 

failed to include the statutory findings in its sentencing entry. Otherwise, we 

overrule Noble’s sole assignment of error.2

 

{¶21} In conclusion, we find that the record supports maximum and 

consecutive sentences, that the trial court made the necessary consecutive-sentence 

findings at the sentencing hearing, and that Noble’s sentence is not contrary to 

law. However, we find that the trial court erred insofar as it failed to incorporate 

its findings into its judgment entry. Therefore, we affirm Noble’s sentence but 

reverse as to the clerical mistake omitted from the judgment entry, and remand this 

 

2

 Moreover, the trial court did not identify Noble’s prior conviction from Clinton County to which the 

sentence in this case was to be consecutively served. In situations where the trial court is ordering a 

sentence to be served consecutive to a sentence in a different case, we have found that a trial court should 

make clear the nature of the previous offense and the length of the current sentence as well as the case 

number for the previous offense. See State v. Good, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-04-37, 2005-Ohio-2660, ¶ 4, fn. 

1; see also State v. Raymond, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-23, 2014-Ohio-556, ¶ 29 (Rogers, J., dissenting) 

(“[A]n order imposing a consecutive sentence is incomplete when it cannot be determined from a reading 

of the sentencing entry as to what case the current sentence is to be served consecutive.”). Therefore, the 

trial court made another clerical error by failing to identify Noble’s prior conviction to which his sentence 

was to be served consecutively and the trial court should also correct this error when issuing a nunc pro 

tunc sentencing entry. 
Case No. 8-14-06 

-13- 

matter for the trial court to incorporate its consecutive-sentence findings into its 

judgment entry. 

Judgment Affirmed in Part 

Reversed in Part and 

Cause Remanded 

SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur. 

/jlr