Court Opinion

ID: 9964267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 16:08:49.52051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:16.487514
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Criswell, 2024-Ohio-1628.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               MARION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                           CASE NO. 9-23-72
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

KEVIN T. CRISWELL, JR.,                                    OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 2022 CR 0412

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         Todd A. Anderson for Appellant

         Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-23-72

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Kevin Criswell (“Criswell”), brings this appeal

from the October 2, 2023, judgment of the Marion County Common Pleas Court.

Criswell argues that the trial court erred by imposing a twelve-month prison

sentence for his Vehicular Assault conviction and that the trial court erred for

imposing consecutive sentences in this matter. For the reasons that follow, we affirm

the judgment of the trial court.

                                    Background

       {¶2} On May 6, 2022, Criswell was operating his vehicle with a BAC of .183

when he drove through a stop sign and struck another vehicle being driven by a

minor. The victim’s vehicle was disabled and the victim had to be extricated and

transported to the hospital.

       {¶3} As a result of his actions, Criswell was indicted for Aggravated

Vehicular Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a), a third degree felony

(Count 1); Vehicular Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(2), a fourth degree

felony (Count 2); and OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(f), a first degree

misdemeanor (Count 3). Criswell originally pled not guilty to the charges.

                                         -2-
Case No. 9-23-72

           {¶4} On July 13, 2023, Criswell entered into a negotiated plea agreement

wherein he agreed to plead guilty to Vehicular Assault and OVI as charged in

Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment. In exchange, the State agreed, inter alia, to dismiss

Count 1 of the indictment, the most serious charge.

           {¶5} A sentencing hearing was held on September 24, 2023. After hearing

the arguments of the parties, statements from the victim’s family1, and statements

in support of Criswell, the trial court sentenced Criswell to serve twelve months in

prison on the Vehicular Assault charge and ninety days of local incarceration on the

OVI. Those sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.

           {¶6} A judgment entry memorializing Criswell’s sentence was filed October

2, 2023. It is from this judgment that Criswell appeals, asserting the following

assignments of error for our review.

1
    At the sentencing hearing, the victim’s mother stated the following:

           This event has forever changed our family, and has stolen any peace of mind we’ve had
           with our now adult children as they travel. [My son] does not feel the same way about
           driving as he used to. After you’ve been hit by a truck, you don’t just recover from that
           mentally, and will not only deal with the physical aspects from that accident, but for the
           long-term psychological and emotional issues.

           ***

           [My son’s] body really did take a beating. At only 17 years old, a junior in high school, he
           experienced serious physical and psychological harm. The Honda Fit that he was driving
           was something that he was a proud owner of and loved that car. That car was completely
           destroyed in the accident and totaled.

(Tr. at 17-18).

                                                       -3-
Case No. 9-23-72

                           First Assignment of Error

      The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it imposed
      consecutive sentences.

                          Second Assignment of Error

      The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it imposed a
      12-month prison sentence.

      {¶7} For ease of discussion, we elect to address the assignments of error out

of the order in which they were raised.

                           Second Assignment of Error

      {¶8} In his second assignment of error, Criswell argues that the trial court

“abused its discretion” by imposing a twelve-month prison term for his Vehicular

Assault conviction.

                               Standard of Review

      {¶9} Revised Code 2953.08(G)(2) establishes the scope of appellate review

for felony sentences. State v. Passmore, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-22-39, 2023-Ohio-

3209, ¶ 64. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse or modify a

sentence only if there is clear and convincing evidence (1) that the trial court’s

findings under R.C. 2929.13(B), R.C. 2929.13(D), R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(e), R.C.

2929.14(C)(4) or R.C. 2929.20(I) are not supported by the record or (2) that the

sentence is otherwise contrary to law. However, unlike the sentencing statutes

explicitly listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the Supreme Court of Ohio has held

                                          -4-
Case No. 9-23-72

that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not provide a basis for an appellate court to

modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by

the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242,

2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 31.

                                      Analysis

       {¶10} In this case Criswell was sentenced to a twelve-month prison term for

his conviction of Vehicular Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(2), a fourth

degree felony. This twelve month prison term was within the appropriate statutory

range for fourth degree felonies. R.C. 2929.14(A)(4).

       {¶11} When the trial court ordered Criswell to serve a twelve month prison

term, the trial court specifically indicated it considered the appropriate sentencing

factors, including those in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. In fact, the trial court

discussed the factors in R.C. 2929.12 at some length on the record, disagreeing with

some of defense counsel’s mitigating arguments. The final judgment entry reflected

that the trial court had considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

       {¶12} Criswell    now    contends       that   the   trial   court   improperly

weighed/considered/applied the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12 in fashioning his sentence. However, even if we assumed, without finding,

that the trial court improperly weighed the sentencing factors, under Jones, we have

no authority to modify or vacate a sentence on this basis. Jones at ¶ 31; State v.

                                         -5-
Case No. 9-23-72

Saunders, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-23-09, 2023-Ohio-4610, ¶ 11; State v. Stennett, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111424, 2022-Ohio-4645, ¶ 12.

       {¶13} The record before us confirms that the trial court considered the

overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the statutory

factors relating to seriousness and recidivism set forth in R.C. 2929.12. Because the

trial court considered the appropriate factors and the sentence imposed was within

the statutory range of sentencing options, the sentence in this case was not contrary

to law. Therefore, Criswell’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                              First Assignment of Error

       {¶14} In his first assignment of error, Criswell argues that the trial court erred

by imposing consecutive sentences in this matter. More specifically, Criswell argues

that the trial court’s findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C.

2929.14(C)(4) were clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

                                       Analysis

       {¶15} Pursuant to Revised Code 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court may order

multiple prison terms to be served consecutively if certain specific findings are

made. Here, Criswell was ordered to serve a jail term and a prison term

consecutively, thus R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) is simply not implicated and the findings

are not required to be made. State v. Alexander, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102708,

2016-Ohio-204, ¶ 7; State v. Cunningham, 5th Dist. No. 2022 CA 00008, 2022-

                                          -6-
Case No. 9-23-72

Ohio-3982, ¶ 60; State v. Coffman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-997, 2019-Ohio-

4145, ¶ 13; see State v. Gault, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-17-31, 2018-Ohio-1682.

       {¶16} Importantly, Revised Code 2929.41(B)(3) provides an exception to the

general rule that misdemeanors must be served concurrently with felonies. Coffman

at ¶ 13. Revised Code 2929.41(B)(3) provides, “[a] jail term or sentence of

imprisonment imposed for a misdemeanor violation of * * * 4511.19 of the Revised

Code shall be served consecutively to a prison term that is imposed for a felony

violation of * * * 2903.08 * * * when the trial court specifies that it is to be served

consecutively.” Thus, R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) permits a jail or prison term for a

misdemeanor violation of R.C. 4511.19 to be served consecutively to a prison term

for a violation of R.C. 2903.06 when specified by the trial court. The trial court

specified such a sentence here. Imposition of the sentence is all that was required of

the trial court in order to impose consecutive sentences. Id. Because no further

findings needed to be made, Criswell’s assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶17} Nevertheless, we note that the trial court did make findings at the

sentencing hearing and in its final judgment entry as if it were imposing consecutive

prison sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Again, we emphasize that R.C.

2929.14(C)(4) was not implicated because consecutive prison terms were not

imposed; however, since the trial court made the unnecessary findings, we will

address Criswell’s argument to the extent it has relevance to whether the sentence

was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

                                          -7-
Case No. 9-23-72

       {¶18} Criswell takes issue with the fact that the trial court seemed to find that

all subsections of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) supported consecutive sentences in this case

even though Criswell was not awaiting trial or under another sanction at the time

the crimes in this case were committed (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)), and even though

he had no criminal history (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c)). At the sentencing hearing, the

trial court did recite each subsection of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); however, the trial court

stated at the sentencing hearing that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) “[s]ection B there is really

the one the Court relies on here.” This subsection cited by the trial court concerns

multiple offenses, and a finding under this subsection to impose consecutive

sentences would be supported by the record if R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) was implicated.

       {¶19} Nevertheless, Criswell contends that the trial court’s final judgment

entry finds that all subsections of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were present even though the

record does not support the findings. In its final entry, the trial court stated the

following with regard to imposing consecutive sentences:

       It is further ORDERED the sentences imposed on the defendant shall
       be served consecutive to each other.

       In finding that the sentences shall be served consecutively, the Court
       finds, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14, that consecutive sentences are
       necessary to punish the Defendant or to protect the public from future
       crime, and that the sentences are not disproportionate to the
       seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and the danger posed by the
       Defendant. The Court further finds that one or more offenses were
       committed while the Defendant was awaiting trial, was on community
       control sanctions, or was on post-release control. The Court further
       finds that 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

                                          -8-
Case No. 9-23-72

       more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual
       that no single prison term for either of the offenses committed as part
       of the course of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the
       Defendant’s conduct. The Court further finds that the Defendant’s
       history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences
       are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the Defendant.

       The Court further finds pursuant to R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) that the
       jail term or sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
       misdemeanor contained in Count 3 of section 4511.19 SHALL be
       served consecutively to the prison term imposed for the felony
       contained in Count 2 of section 2903.08 * * *[.]

(Bold in original) (Doc. No. 94).

       {¶20} It is true that the record does not support the trial court’s superfluous

and unnecessary findings that Criswell was awaiting trial or on sanctions at the time

he committed these offenses, and that the record does not support that Criswell had

any criminal history. Even accepting that the trial court should not have made these

statements, the trial court’s finding regarding multiple offenses was supported by

the record. Courts have held that where the trial court made an erroneous finding

pursuant to one of the subsections in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the error is harmless where

another subsection supports the trial court’s decision. State v. Russell, 11th Dist.

Lake No. 2019-L-138, 2020-Ohio-3243, ¶ 15. Thus to any extent the trial court

made improper findings, which were unnecessary and superfluous to begin with,

they are harmless here.

       {¶21} In sum, we find that the trial court did not need to make any findings

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences in this case. To the

                                         -9-
Case No. 9-23-72

extent that the trial court did make any of the findings, and that they were improper,

they are harmless. For these reasons, Criswell’s first assignment of error is

overruled.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶22} Having found no error prejudicial to Criswell in the particulars

assigned and argued, his assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the

Marion County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

                                                                 Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/tmm

                                        -10-