Court Opinion

ID: 9379897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 17:07:54.422524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.773218
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2023-Ohio-830.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                               :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                 :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                             :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
DENZIL E. WILSON JR.,                        :       Case No. CT2022-0042
                                             :
        Defendant - Appellant                :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Muskingum County
                                                     Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                     CR2022-0056

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    March 15, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

RON WALSH                                            CHRIS BRIGDON
Prosecuting Attorney                                 8138 Somerset Road
Muskingum County, Ohio                               Thornville, Ohio 43076

By: JOHN CONNOR DEVER
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Muskingum County, Ohio
27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Denzil E. Wilson, Jr. appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion

to suppress in connection with one of his two OVI charges, and the sentence imposed by

the trial court. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

                     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   On October 15, 2021, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Kyle Dickinson

was working the midnight shift when he observed the appellant operating his motor

vehicle through the intersection of Underwood and Zane Street in Muskingum County at

a slow rate of speed, and was leaning up on the steering wheel with his grip “locked [at]

10 and 2” on the wheel, which he testified was unusual. Trooper Dickinson ran the

appellant’s license plate through his MCI in-car computer and discovered that the

appellant was under an OVI suspension, and that his plates were expired, or suspended.

       {¶3}   Trooper Dickinson pulled the appellant over, and while interacting with him

noticed that his eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy, and that his pupils were constricted

exceptionally small for that time of night. In addition, Trooper Dickinson noticed the smell

of alcohol coming from the interior of the car, and noticed that the appellant’s eyelids were

droopy and his speech was slurred. Finally, Trooper Dickinson observed the appellant

fumble as he sorted through his paperwork to provide the Trooper with requested

documentation. Trooper Dickinson testified that while he made these observations of the

appellant, not every single indicator of intoxication appears in his written report due to

time constraints: “. . . if I put every little detail in our reports, we’d - - we stop so many

cars. We don’t have enough time.”
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                              3

       {¶4}   Given the aforesaid indicators of intoxication, Trooper Dickinson

administered a number of standard field sobriety tests upon the appellant, including the

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Vertical Gaze Nystagmus test (VGN), the

walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand test, during which he observed a total of four

clues of intoxication. He testified that he observed three clues out of four during the one-

leg stand test, and only two clues from that test are needed for an arrest.

       {¶5}   In addition, he conducted a non-standard sobriety test called the Modified

Romberg Test in which the appellant was asked to stand with his feet together and his

head back, and estimate thirty seconds. Trooper Dickinson observed another clue of

intoxication during this test.

       {¶6}   Based upon a combination of all of the above, Trooper Dickinson placed the

appellant under arrest for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs,

or a combination of them.

       {¶7}   Trooper Dickinson asked the appellant to submit to a chemical test, but the

appellant began to complain that he was getting dizzy, that his hands and legs were

numb, and that he wanted Trooper Dickinson to call EMS. Trooper Dickinson contacted

EMS, and the appellant was transported to the hospital. Trooper Dickinson followed the

appellant to the hospital, informed the appellant that the charge was going to involve a

felony OVI, and asked the appellant to provide a sample for a chemical test. The appellant

indicated that he was not going to provide one. Trooper Dickinson informed him that the

matter involved a felony, and if he refused to provide a sample they would go forward with

a warrant. The appellant thereafter provided a sample, three minutes past the three-hour

ALS suspension time.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                               4

       {¶8}   At the time of the October 15, 2021 OVI arrest, the appellant had been

convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more OVIs within the preceding twenty years.

       {¶9}   On January 1, 2022, the appellant was observed by an Ohio State Highway

Patrol Trooper driving on Adair Avenue near Maple Avenue in Muskingum County at 3:43

a.m. with no headlights. The appellant turned down an alley and behind a business that

resembled a residence, exited his vehicle, and told the Trooper he was parked behind his

friend’s house, oblivious to the fact that the building behind which he had parked was a

business and not a residence. The Trooper observed that the appellant had drooping

eyelids, and bloodshot eyes with very constricted pupils that did not react to light from the

flashlight. In addition, the appellant’s license was suspended and the plates on his vehicle

were fictitious. The Trooper put the appellant in his patrol vehicle, where he observed the

appellant nodding off throughout the interaction. The appellant refused all sobriety tests,

as well as a chemical test.

       {¶10} On March 3, 2022, the Muskingum County grand jury indicted the appellant

on the following seven counts:

       {¶11} Count 1 – operation of a motor vehicle on or about October 15, 2021 in

violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) (operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them), with the R.C. 2941.1413
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                  5

specification1 that he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five OVI offenses in the

preceding twenty years in 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015;2

       {¶12} Count 2 – operation of a motor vehicle on or about October 15, 2021 in

violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(iii) (operating a motor vehicle while having a

concentration of at least one hundred fifty nanograms of cocaine metabolite per milliliter

of his urine or a concentration of at least fifty nanograms of cocaine metabolite per milliliter

of his whole blood or blood serum or plasma), with the R.C. 2941.1413 specification that

he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five OVI offenses in the preceding twenty

years in 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015;

       {¶13} Count 3 – operation of a motor vehicle on or about October 15, 2021 in

violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(ix) (operating a motor vehicle while having a

concentration of at least five hundred nanograms of methamphetamine per milliliter of his

urine or a concentration of at least one hundred monograms of methamphetamine per

milliliter of his whole blood or blood serum or plasma), with the R.C. 2941.1413

specification that he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five OVI offenses in the

preceding twenty years in 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015;

       {¶14} Count 4 – operation of a motor vehicle on or about October 15, 2021 in

violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(ii) (operating a motor vehicle while having a

concentration of at least one hundred fifty nanograms of cocaine per milliliter of his urine

1
 R.C. 2941.1413 allows for the imposition of an additional prison term if the indictment
specifies that an offender has been previously convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or
more OVI offenses within the preceding twenty years.

2
 The offenses with which the appellant was indicted also included a second
specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417 regarding forfeiture of his motor vehicle(s) he
was operating at the time of the offenses. The appellant has not appealed this issue.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                6

or a concentration of at least fifty nanograms of cocaine per milliliter of his whole blood or

blood serum or plasma), with the R.C. 2941.1413 specification that he had been convicted

of or pleaded guilty to five OVI offenses in the preceding twenty years in 2004, 2007,

2011, 2013, and 2015;

       {¶15} Count 5 – operation of a motor vehicle on or about October 15, 2021 in

violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(i) (operating a motor vehicle while having a

concentration of at least five hundred nanograms of amphetamine per milliliter of his urine

or a concentration of at least one hundred nanograms of amphetamine per milliliter of his

whole blood or blood serum or plasma), with the R.C. 2941.1413 specification that he had

been convicted of or pleaded guilty to five OVI offenses in the preceding twenty years in

2004, 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015;

       {¶16} Count 6 – operation of a motor vehicle on or about January 1, 2022 in

violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) (operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol and/or drugs), with the R.C. 2941.1413 specification that he had been convicted

of or pleaded guilty to five OVI offenses in the preceding twenty years in 2004, 2007,

2011, 2013, and 2015; and,

       {¶17} Count 7 – refusal to submit to a chemical test when requested following the

stop on or about January 1,2022 for operating a motor vehicle in violation of R.C.

4511.19(A)(1)(a), with the specification that he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to

five OVI offenses in the preceding twenty years in 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015.

       {¶18} The appellant was arrested on March 7, 2022. He was arraigned on March

9, 2022, at which time he pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                     7

       {¶19} On April 5, 2022, the appellant filed a motion to suppress in which he moved

the trial court to suppress the following evidence obtained during the October 15, 2021

traffic stop:

       1. Tests of [appellant’s] coordination and/or sobriety and/or alcohol and/or

       drug level including, but not limited to, chemical tests of [appellant’s] alcohol

       and/or drug level;

       2. Statements taken from or made by the [appellant];

       3. Observations and opinions of the police officer(s) who stopped the

       [appellant] and/or arrested and/or tested the [appellant] regarding her [sic]

       sobriety and/or alcohol and/or drug level;

       4. Any and all evidence obtained as the result of the warrantless seizure of

       the [appellant].

       {¶20} The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress

on May 9, 2022, after which it denied the motion.

       {¶21} On May 17, 2022, the trial court conducted a plea and sentencing hearing

at which time the appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty to

Counts 1 and 6. The parties’ plea agreement was summarized by the appellee as follows:

       MS. MARTIN:           Your Honor, we’re here in the matter of State of Ohio

       versus Denzil E. Wilson, Jr., Case No. CR2022-0056. It’s my understanding

       the defendant is here with counsel to withdraw his former plea of not guilty

       and enter a plea of guilty to the following offenses: Count 1, OVI with five

       prior convictions in 20 years with a forfeiture specification as amended, in

       violation of 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and 2941.1417, a felony of the fourth degree.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                 8

       And Count 6, the same OVI with five prior convictions in 20 years with a

       forfeiture specification as amended, again, in violation of 4511.19(A)(1)(a)

       and 2941.417 [sic], a felony of the fourth degree.

              In consideration of the defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 6

       as amended, the parties agree that the State will make no recommendation

       as to sentencing leaving the same to the discretion of the Court. The

       defendant agrees to forfeit the vehicle driven at the time of his arrest. The

       State agrees to dismiss Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the indictment, and the

       OVI specifications attached to Counts 1 and 6 of the indictment at the time

       of sentencing.

                                      *      *      *

       MR. MELVIN:          Thank you, Your Honor. Statements made by the

       prosecutor are correct….

(Emphasis added.) Transcript of May 17, 2022 Plea and Sentencing Hearing at p. 3-4.

       {¶22} Thus, the R.C. 2941.1413 OVI specifications contained in the March 3, 2022

Indictment were dismissed.

       {¶23} The trial court addressed the appellant personally pursuant to Crim.R.

11(C)(2) prior to accepting his plea. The trial court’s discussion with the appellant

regarding his guilty plea included, but was not limited to, the following exchange:

       THE COURT:           And you’re offering to plead guilty to two counts, Count

       1 and Count 6 are both OVI with five prior convictions, both with forfeiture

       specifications, both being classified as felonies of the fourth degree?

       THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                       9

       THE COURT:            You understand each of those offenses carry a

       possible penalty of 60 days local incarceration up to one year or 60 days in

       prison with an option of additional 6 to 30 months. Maximum fine of $1,350

       to $10,500, an alcohol and drug addiction program is mandatory, license

       suspension between 3 years to life. Driving privileges after three years,

       plates are required if alcohol related, and the vehicle is to be forfeited if it is

       registered to the defendant. Do you understand that?

       THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                                        *       *      *

       THE COURT:            You also understand you have a right to appeal your

       case within 30 days of sentencing, but by pleading guilty you severely limit

       the chances of any appeal being successful?

       THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

       {¶24} The appellant pleaded guilty to Count 1, OVI with five prior convictions and

a forfeiture specification, a felony of the fourth degree; and, Count 6, OVI with five prior

convictions and the forfeiture specification, also a felony of the fourth degree.

       {¶25} The trial court proceeded to sentence the appellant, ordering the forfeiture

of the appellant’s vehicles that he was driving at the time of the October 15, 2021 and

January 1, 2022 offenses, and a $1,350.00 fine. In addition, the trial court, “[b]ased upon

the fact that these two [offenses] occurred that close together, and that [appellant has]

these many priors, and that [appellant] created a substantial risk of harm to everybody

who was on the road,” sentenced the appellant to sixty (60) days in prison and an
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                10

additional twenty (20) months on each count. The trial court further ordered that the

sentences to be served consecutively, stating:

             The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect

      the public of future crime, that you have a number of these prior convictions

      as well as these two committed that close together. I find that the sentences

      are necessary to protect, punish you and they’re not disproportionate to the

      seriousness of the conduct and danger posed to the public.

             The fact that you’re using drugs and getting behind the wheel of a

      vehicle driving with no lights in the middle of the night, it’s just way, way too

      dangerous.

      {¶26} The appellant filed a timely appeal and has submitted the following

Assignments of Error:

      {¶27} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION TO

SUPPRESS      EVIDENCE        BASED      ON;    THE    APPELLANT        DEMONSTRATING

INSUFFICIENT INDICIA OF INTOXICATION UPON WHICH A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST

THEN COULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.”

      {¶28} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN DENYING THE MOTION TO

SUPPRESS EVIDENCE; GIVEN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE

ARRESTING STATE TROOPER LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST AFTER

THE APPELLANT PERFORMED THE STANDARD FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS.”

      {¶29} “III. THE ARRESTING STATE TROOPER DID NOT CONDUCT THE

CHEMICAL TEST WITHIN THE THREE (3) HOUR TIME FRAME PRESCRIBED BY

O.R.C. §4511.19.”
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                       11

          {¶30} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN SENTENCING THE APPELLANT

TO 60 DAYS PRISON AND AN ADDITIONAL 20 MONTHS OF PRISON ON EACH

COUNT.”

          {¶31} “V.   CONSECUTIVE          SENTENCES        WHERE       UNLAWFUL       AND        A

VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.”

                      ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS I, II, & III

          {¶32} The appellant argues in Assignments of Error Numbers I, II, and III that the

trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress tests of his coordination and/or sobriety

and/or alcohol and/or drug level including, but not limited to, chemical tests of his alcohol

and/or drug level; statements taken from or made by him; observations and opinions of

the officer who stopped him and/or arrested and/or tested him regarding his sobriety

and/or alcohol and/or drug level; and, any and all evidence obtained as the result of the

arrest.

          {¶33} As set forth above, following the trial court’s lengthy and thorough Crim. R.

11 discussion with the appellant, he pleaded guilty to two counts of OVI, one for the

October 15, 2021 arrest and one for the January 1, 2022 arrest, with five OVI offenses in

the preceding twenty years, both felonies of the fourth degree.

          {¶34} This court has held:

          . . . A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives the right to appeal all

          non-jurisdictional issues arising at prior stages of the proceedings * * *. Ross

          v. Auglaize Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 30 Ohio St.2d 323, 285 N.E.2d 25

          (1972). Thus, by entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives the right to raise

          on appeal the proprietary [sic] of a trial court's suppression ruling. State v.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                12

       Elliott, 86 Ohio App.3d 792, 621 N.E.2d 1272 (12th Dist.1993); State v.

       Harvey, 5th Dist. Stark No. 20074–CA–00335, 2008–Ohio–3654. By

       entering his guilty plea in this case, appellant waived his right assert any

       challenge to the trial court's ruling on his Motion to Suppress.

State v. Wooddell, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 1-CA-14, 2016-Ohio-7752, ¶9. See, also, State

v. Hickman, 5th Dist. Licking No. 18-CA-116, 2019-Ohio-2819, ¶¶21-22.

       {¶35} Based upon the foregoing, we find that by entering his guilty plea to Counts

1 and 6 the appellant waived his right to assert any challenge to the trial court’s ruling on

his motion to suppress. Accordingly, appellant’s Assignments of Error Numbers I, II, and

III are overruled.

                     ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS IV & V

       {¶36} The appellant argues in Assignments of Error Numbers IV and V that the

trial court erred in sentencing him to sixty (60) days plus twenty (20) months in prison per

count, and that the trial court erred in ordering that the sentences be served consecutively.

We disagree.

       {¶37} Felony sentences are reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Goings,

6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1103, 2014-Ohio-2322, 2014 WL 2480615, ¶ 20. An appellate

court may increase, modify, or vacate and remand a judgment only if it clearly and

convincingly finds either “(a) the record does not support the sentencing court's findings

under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14,

or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant” or

“(b) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Yeager, 6th Dist. Sandusky No.

S-15-025, 2016-Ohio-4759, 2016 WL 3573887, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                 13

       {¶38} The appellant's argument alleges that the trial court’s sentence is unlawful

and in contravention of R.C. 4511.19 and R.C. 2929.13. Therefore, we review appellant's

sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) to determine whether it is contrary to law.

       {¶39} The appellant and appellee entered into a plea agreement in which the

appellee dismissed a number of the charges set forth in the March 3, 2022 Indictment in

exchange for the appellant’s plea of guilty, and the appellee declined to make a

sentencing recommendation. Specifically, the appellee dismissed Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and

7, as well as the OVI specifications attached to Counts 1 and 6. Thus, the R.C. 2941.1413

OVI specifications contained in Counts 1 and 6 were dismissed.

       {¶40} The appellant pleaded guilty to Count 1, OVI in violation of R.C.

4511.19(A)(1)(a) with five prior convictions, for the October 15, 2021 offense; and, Count

6, OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) with five prior convictions, for the January 1,

2022 offense. Both are felonies of the fourth degree. The trial court sentenced the

appellant to a term of sixty (60) days plus an additional twenty (20) months in prison on

Count 1, and sixty (60) days plus an additional twenty (20) months in prison on Count 6.

The trial court further ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, for an

aggregate prison sentence of forty (40) months plus one-hundred twenty (120) days.

       {¶41} R.C. 4511.19(G)(1) provides: “[w]hoever violates any provision of divisions

(A)(1)(a) to (i) or (A)(2) of this section is guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence

of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them. *** The court shall sentence the

offender for either offense under Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code, except as otherwise

authorized or required by divisions (G)(1)(a) to (e) of this section.”

       {¶42} R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d)(i) provides:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                  14

            Except as otherwise provided in division (G)(1)(e) of this section, an

     offender who, . . . within twenty years of the offense, previously has been

     convicted of or pleaded guilty to five or more violations of that nature is guilty

     of a felony of the fourth degree. The court shall sentence the offender to all

     of the following:

            If the sentence is being imposed for a violation of division (A)(1)(a),

     (b), (c), (d), (e), or (j) of this section, a mandatory prison term of one, two,

     three, four, or five years as required by and in accordance with division

     (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code if the offender also is

     convicted of or also pleads guilty to a specification of the type described in

     section 2941.1413 of the Revised Code or, in the discretion of the court,

     either a mandatory term of local incarceration of sixty consecutive days in

     accordance with division (G)(1) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code or

     a mandatory prison term of sixty consecutive days in accordance with

     division (G)(2) of that section if the offender is not convicted of and does not

     plead guilty to a specification of that type. If the court imposes a mandatory

     term of local incarceration, it may impose a jail term in addition to the sixty-

     day mandatory term, the cumulative total of the mandatory term and the jail

     term for the offense shall not exceed one year, and, except as provided in

     division (A)(1) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code, no prison term is

     authorized for the offense. If the court imposes a mandatory prison term,

     notwithstanding division (A)(4) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, it

     also may sentence the offender to a definite prison term that shall be not
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                  15

       less than six months and not more than thirty months and the prison terms

       shall be imposed as described in division (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the

       Revised Code. If the court imposes a mandatory prison term or mandatory

       prison term and additional prison term, in addition to the term or terms so

       imposed, the court also may sentence the offender to a community control

       sanction for the offense, but the offender shall serve all of the prison terms

       so imposed prior to serving the community control sanction.

(Emphasis added.)

       {¶43} In this case, the appellee dismissed the R.C. 2941.1413 OVI specifications.

Accordingly, the appellant was not convicted of the specifications, nor did he plead guilty

to the same. Thus, the trial court’s sentence falls within the parameters set forth in R.C.

4511.19(G)(1)(d).

       {¶44} R.C. 2929.13(G)(2) provides in pertinent part:

              If the offender is being sentenced for a third degree felony OVI

       offense, or if the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree felony OVI

       offense and the court does not impose a mandatory term of local

       incarceration under division (G)(1) of this section, the court shall impose

       upon the offender a mandatory prison term of one, two, three, four, or five

       years if the offender also is convicted of or also pleads guilty to a

       specification of the type described in section 2941.1413 of the Revised

       Code or shall impose upon the offender a mandatory prison term of sixty

       days or one hundred twenty days as specified in division (G)(1)(d) or (e) of
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                   16

      section 4511.19 of the Revised Code if the offender has not been convicted

      of and has not pleaded guilty to a specification of that type….

(Emphasis added.)

      {¶45} Again, the appellant was not convicted of nor did he plead guilty to the R.C.

2941.1413 specifications, as those specifications were dismissed by the prosecutor

during the May 17, 2022 Plea and Sentencing Hearing. Thus, the trial court’s sentence of

a mandatory prison term of sixty (60) days per Count is within the parameters of R.C.

2929.13(G)(2).

      {¶46} In addition, R.C. 2929.14(B)(4) provides:

             If the offender is being sentenced for a third or fourth degree felony

      OVI offense under division (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code,

      the sentencing court shall impose upon the offender a mandatory prison

      term in accordance with that division. In addition to the mandatory prison

      term, if the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree felony OVI

      offense, the court, notwithstanding division (A)(4) of this section, may

      sentence the offender to a definite prison term of not less than six months

      and not more than thirty months, and if the offender is being sentenced for

      a third degree felony OVI offense, the sentencing court may sentence the

      offender to an additional prison term of any duration specified in division

      (A)(3) of this section. In either case, the additional prison term imposed shall

      be reduced by the sixty or one hundred twenty days imposed upon the

      offender as the mandatory prison term. The total of the additional prison

      term imposed under division (B)(4) of this section plus the sixty or one
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                  17

       hundred twenty days imposed as the mandatory prison term shall equal a

       definite term in the range of six months to thirty months for a fourth degree

       felony OVI offense and shall equal one of the authorized prison terms

       specified in division (A)(3) of this section for a third degree felony OVI

       offense. If the court imposes an additional prison term under division (B)(4)

       of this section, the offender shall serve the additional prison term after the

       offender has served the mandatory prison term required for the offense….

(Emphasis added.)

       {¶47} The total of the additional twenty-month prison term plus the sixty days the

trial court imposed as the mandatory prison term for each count equals a definite term of

twenty-two months per count, which is within the six to thirty month range set forth in R.C.

2929.14(B)(4). Thus, the trial court’s sentence is within the parameters of R.C.

2929.14(B)(4).

       {¶48} Finally, 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
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                                 18

       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.

       {¶49} The trial court found that the imposition of consecutive sentences upon the

appellant was necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender,

and that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the

appellant's conduct and to the danger the appellant posed to the public. In addition, the

trial court found that the appellant’s history of criminal conduct, that is, his multiple prior

OVI convictions, demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the

public from future crime by the appellant. Accordingly, the trial court’s order that the

appellant’s sentences be served consecutively falls within the parameters of R.C.

2929.14(C)(4).

       {¶50} This court has held that a trial court is vested with the discretion to impose

a prison term within the statutory range. State v. Rutter, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. 2006-

CA-0025, 2006-Ohio-4061, ¶11, citing State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 846 N.E.2d 1,

2006-Ohio-855, ¶36. In the case sub judice, the trial court imposed a prison term for each
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0042                                          19

count that was within the statutory range. Further, the trial court’s finding that the

sentences be served consecutively falls within the parameters of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Accordingly, appellant’s Assignments of Error Numbers IV and V are overruled.

                                CONCLUSION

       {¶51} Based upon the foregoing, appellant’s Assignments of Error Numbers I, II,

III, IV, and V are overruled, and the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common

Pleas is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

Hoffman, J. concur.