[Cite as State v. Tea, 2016-Ohio-741.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 SANDUSKY COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. S-15-013 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 09 CR 500 

v. 

Trevor Tea DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: February 26, 2016 

* * * * * 

 Emil G. Gravelle, III, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

PIETRYKOWSKI, J. 

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the Sandusky County Court of 

Common Pleas in which the court revoked a previously imposed community control 

sentence and ordered defendant-appellant, Trevor Tea, to serve three consecutive terms 

of 12 months each in prison for his convictions on three counts of felony nonsupport. 

Tea now challenges the consecutive nature of his sentences through the following 

assignment of error: 
2.

 Appellant was improperly sentenced to consecutive sentences 

because the sentencing judge failed to properly follow the requirements of 

Ohio Revised Code 2929.14(C)(4). 

{¶ 2} The facts of this case are as follows. On June 29, 2009, appellant pled guilty 

to three counts of felony nonsupport in violation of R.C. 2919.21(B), all fifth degree 

felonies. In lieu of a sentence, the lower court stayed further proceedings and placed 

appellant in a pre-trial diversion program. Under the court’s order, if appellant 

successfully completed the diversion program, the case against him would be dismissed. 

{¶ 3} On August 9, 2013, the state filed a motion for revocation of appellant’s 

participation in the pretrial diversion program, as appellant had not complied with the 

terms and conditions of that program. This was the third time the state sought to 

terminate appellant’s participation in the program for his non-compliance. On two 

previous occasions, he became compliant and the state dismissed its motion. Following a 

hearing, appellant consented to the revocation of his participation in the diversion 

program and the lower court accepted his guilty pleas as previously entered. On 

February 12, 2014, the lower court filed a judgment entry of sentence following a hearing 

on the matter. The court sentenced appellant to community control for three years and 

listed a number of conditions with which appellant was to comply. There is no transcript 

from that hearing in the record before us, but the judgment entry of sentence includes the 

following: 
3.

The Defendant was advised that a violation of the terms of community 

control would result in a revocation of community control, and the 

imposition of a TWELVE (12) month prison sentence for the offense of 

FELONY NONSUPPORT in Count Seven, and a TWELVE (12) month

prison sentence for the offense of FELONY NONSUPPORT in Count 

Eight and a TWELVE (12) month prison sentence for the offense of 

FELONY NONSUPPORT in Count Nine. Those sentences would run 

consecutive to one another for an aggregate sentence of THIRTY SIX 

(36) months prison. 

{¶ 4} On February 20, 2015, the probation department filed a notice of probation 

violation in the court below, citing appellant’s failure to find employment and failure to 

pay anything on his child support for a year. The case came before the lower court for a 

hearing on April 15, 2015. Following testimony from appellant’s supervisor from the 

probation department, the court found probable cause existed, revoked appellant’s 

community control, and proceeded to impose the underlying sentence. In imposing 

sentence, the court stated in relevant part: 

 THE COURT: The sentence that you’ll be serving is 12 months on 

each of the felony nonsupport cases. They are run consecutive, and the 

consecutive finding, I – I do need to have something in my hand for that, 

Jay. I have to make special findings because those sentences are being run 

consecutive. Will you get that? 
4.

 THE BAILIFF: Is that in your book? 

 THE COURT: Yeah, it’s in my book. You are considered a 

convicted felon, you cannot own, possess, or use a firearm, and you will 

have to give a DNA sample if you have not already. 

 You have 30 days to file a limited appeal in this case. On the 

consecutive sentences – and I believe these are for – are these for three 

different children or three different years – periods? State of Ohio? 

 * * * 

 MR. ROSS: Three different children, three different time periods, 

Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: Okay, so that – I will find that that’s one reason that 

you – consecutive sentences. They’re both to protect the public, and, 

actually, to punish the offender. These are multiple offenses, their course 

of conduct. His history just shows that consecutive sentences are 

necessary, and, again, these are different children and these are different 

time periods. Is that correct? 

 MR. ROSS: The time frames may be the same – Your Honor. I’d 

have to – 

 THE COURT: They are three different children he failed to 

support? 

 MR. ROSS: Correct, three different children – 
5.

 THE COURT: Okay, so I’ll find that that’s – those are three 

different offenses. 

{¶ 5} Thereafter, the court filed a judgment entry of sentence. Regarding the 

consecutive nature of the terms, the court found: 

[T]hat consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and 

punish the Defendant. Further, the Court found that there were three 

different children that the Defendant failed to support and that the harm was 

so great that no single prison term for the offenses committed adequately 

reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct. Further, the Defendant 

was given the privilege of Community Control and the Pretrial Diversion 

program to resolve the within case, which he has violated in both situations. 

{¶ 6} Appellant now challenges the consecutive nature of his sentences on appeal. 

He asserts that the lower court did not make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) 

for imposing consecutive sentences. The state has not filed a brief in opposition. 

{¶ 7} We review consecutive sentences under the standard of review set forth in 

R.C. 2953.08. State v. Banks, 6th Dist. Lucas No L-13-1095, 2014-Ohio-1000, ¶ 10. 

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate the 

sentence and remand that matter to the sentencing court for resentencing, if we clearly 

and convincingly find that either the record does not support the trial court’s findings 

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. This same 

standard applies on review of the imposition of consecutive sentences following a 
6.

community control revocation hearing. State v. Steck, 6th Dist. Wood Nos. WD-13-017 

and WD-13-018, 2014-Ohio-3623. 

{¶ 8} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) 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: 

 (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. 
7.

 (c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that 

consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime 

by the offender. 

{¶ 9} In State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, 

syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified the responsibilities of a trial court when 

imposing consecutive sentences: 

 In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court 

is required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the 

sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but 

it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings. 

{¶ 10} The court further explained: 

 [A] word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute is not 

required, and as long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court 

engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains 

evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld. 

Id. at ¶ 29. 

{¶ 11} At the sentencing hearing below, the lower court found that consecutive 

sentences were necessary to protect the public and punish the offender. We can also 

discern from the transcript that the court found, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) that 

appellant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrated that consecutive sentences were 

necessary to protect the public from future crime by appellant. The court also found that 
8.

consecutive terms were justified because of appellant’s course of conduct in failing to 

support three different children. In its judgment entry of sentence, the court made these 

findings as well and further found that the harm caused by those multiple offenses was so 

great or unusual that no single prison term for the offenses committed would reflect the 

seriousness of appellant’s conduct. There is nothing in the record, however, from which 

we can conclude that the court determined that consecutive sentences were not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and to the danger that appellant 

poses to the public, a finding mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C). The judgment entry of 

sentence is similarly void of this required finding. 

{¶ 12} Accordingly, because the record does not support a conclusion that the trial 

court made all of the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C), the imposition of consecutive 

sentences by the trial court was contrary to law and the sole assignment of error is welltaken. 

{¶ 13} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The sentence is vacated and the 

case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs 

of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. 

Judgment affirmed in part 

and reversed in part. 
9.

 State v. Tea 

 C.A. No. S-15-013 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

_______________________________ 

James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.