[Cite as State v. Gross, 2017-Ohio-2986.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 104851

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

LERASHAD D. GROSS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-16-603472-A 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Boyle, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 25, 2017 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Myriam A. Miranda 

P.O. Box 40222 

Bay Village, Ohio 44140 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Andrea N. Isabella 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Lerashad Gross appeals his separate convictions for gross sexual imposition 

and abduction that resulted in an aggregate sentence of 42 months in prison. We affirm. 

{¶2} Gross did not provide a recitation of the facts as required under App.R. 

16(A)(6). We take this omission to mean that the facts of Gross’s criminal conduct are 

not dispositive of or necessary to resolving the assigned error. App.R. 16(A)(6). (“The 

appellant shall include in its brief * * * [a] statement of facts relevant to the assignments 

of error presented for review, with appropriate references to the record.”) The state has 

not presented any facts of the underlying criminal conduct either. Both parties are 

apparently under the impression that a recitation of the procedural history of the case, 

along with references to the sentencing transcript, is enough to enable our review of the 

legal issues advanced in the sole assignment of error. 

{¶3} Gross claims that the trial court erred at the sentencing hearing by not 

providing reasons in support of the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and 

that the imposition of consecutive sentences totaling 42 months is clearly and 

convincingly contrary to law because it is inconsistent with sentences imposed upon 

similarly situated offenders and is disproportionate to the crime. We find no merit to 

either argument, but also note that the legal arguments in Gross’s brief are identical to the 

ones advanced in State v. Watkins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104507, 2017-Ohio-964. As 

a result, our decision is largely limited to the conclusions reached in Watkins. 
{¶4} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) permits the court to order consecutive service of multiple 

sentences that (1) is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the 

offender; (2) is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to 

the danger the offender poses to the public; and additionally, (3) if (a) the offender 

committed the offense while awaiting trial or sentencing, under community control 

monitoring, or under postrelease control for a prior offense; (b) at least two of the 

offenses caused harm so great and unusual that no single term for any offense adequately 

reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct; or (c) the offender’s history of criminal 

conduct demonstrates the necessity of consecutive sentences to protect the public from 

future crime. Watkins at ¶ 5, citing State v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104152, 

2016-Ohio-8145, ¶ 10, and State v. Smeznik, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 103196 and 

103197, 2016-Ohio-709, ¶ 6. 

{¶5} We must affirm an order imposing consecutive service of the prison terms, 

once the findings are made, unless it can be clearly and convincingly found that the 

record does not support the sentencing judge’s findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). This is an 

“extremely deferential” standard of review and one written in the negative. State v. 

Kirkman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103683, 2016-Ohio-5326, ¶ 6. 

{¶6} The crux of Gross’s argument is that he believes the 42-month aggregate 

sentence is inconsistent with sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders and is 

disproportionate to the crimes Gross committed. Despite this claim, no comparative 

sentencing data, to show how this sentence was inconsistent or disproportionate to others, 
was offered for the trial court’s consideration. This issue was not raised during the 

sentencing hearing, and simply claiming that a 42-month aggregate sentence is 

disproportionate to the offender’s conduct and the danger he poses to the public is not 

sufficient under the Rules of Appellate Procedure. App.R. 16(A)(7); Watkins, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 104507, 2017-Ohio-964, at ¶ 6. In addition, Gross has not provided a 

factual basis demonstrating that his conduct in committing the crimes was 

disproportionate to his 42-month aggregate sentence. Id. 

{¶7} Gross also believes the trial court should have offered reasons or additional 

analysis in justifying the sentence imposed. It is well settled that a trial court need not 

provide reasons in support of its consecutive-sentence findings. State v. Bonnell, 140 

Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37; Watkins at ¶ 7. Although not 

required, the trial court did offer a fairly detailed account of the reasons for imposing the 

sentence. Tr. 44:1-46:18. In addition to the required findings, the trial court noted (1) 

the debilitating effect of the sexual assault on the 17-year-old victim’s psyche, (2) Gross’s 

substance abuse problems, and (3) the fact that Gross was arrested for operating a vehicle 

while intoxicated and endangering a child the day after pleading guilty to the crimes in 

this case, all of which weighed heavily in favor of the prison terms imposed. The trial 

court also considered statements from the victim’s family, the presentence investigation 

report, the report prepared by the court’s psychiatric clinic, Gross’s expression of 

remorse, and arguments by counsel for the state and the defendant. 
{¶8} The trial court considered all that the law requires and made the findings 

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and there is no argument that the record does not factually 

support the consecutive-sentence findings. Watkins at ¶ 9. The sole assignment of error 

must be overruled. 

{¶9} We affirm. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from 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. The defendant’s conviction having 

been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court 

for execution of sentence. 

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

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., CONCURS; 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY