Court Opinion

ID: 9908026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 17:08:20.561702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:46:48.724021
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Walker, 2023-Ohio-4417.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                            No. 112546
                 v.                                :

ANDRE WALKER,                                      :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 7, 2023

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Case No. CR-22-675355-A

                                             Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Owen Knapp, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 The Goldberg Law Firm LLC and Adam Parker, for
                 appellant.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

                   Andre Walker (“Walker”) appeals the trial court’s journal entry

sentencing him to 60 months in prison. After reviewing the facts of the case and

pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
I.   Facts and Procedural History

               On February 28, 2023, Walker pled guilty to receiving stolen

property, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A); theft/aggravated theft,

a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); and six counts of breaking

and entering, each fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A).

               On March 15, 2023, the trial court sentenced Walker to 12 months in

prison on each of the eight counts. Four of the breaking and entering counts and the

receiving stolen property count were ordered to be served consecutively, while the

remaining three counts were ordered to be served concurrently for an aggregate

prison term of 60 months.

               It is from this order that Walker appeals raising the following

assignment of error: “The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.”

II. Law and Analysis

               “[T]o 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 * * *.” State v. Bonnell,

140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37.                    Pursuant to

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the court must find that consecutive sentences are “necessary to

protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender”; “not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the

offender poses to the public”; and at least one of the following three factors:
      (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while
      the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction
      * * *, 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.

              Here, Walker argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive

sentences because his conduct was not part of “a course of conduct, and consecutive

sentences were not necessary to protect the public.”1 We disagree.

              At the sentencing hearing, the trial court made the initial findings

required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when it stated that it “finds that consecutive service

is necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender and

that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the

offender’s conduct and to the danger that you, Mr. Walker, pose to the public.”

              The trial court also made findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) and

(c) before imposing consecutive sentences. The court found both that Walker’s

history of criminal conduct demonstrated a need for consecutive sentences to

protect the public from future crime by Walker and that Walker’s crimes were part

      1 Walker does not challenge whether the court’s findings were incorporated into

the sentencing entry, and we note that the trial court did incorporate each of its
consecutive-sentencing findings into its final sentencing entry.
of one or more courses of conduct. We find both findings are supported by the

record. Notably, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires only that the trial court make findings

under one subsection. As a result, if this court finds that one of the subsection

findings is supported by the record, Walker’s assignment of error must be overruled.

      A. Necessary to Protect the Public

               Walker challenges the court’s finding that consecutive sentences are

necessary to protect the public. Walker is not specific as to whether he is challenging

the trial court’s initial finding that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the

public or the specific finding under subsection (c) that Walker’s history of criminal

conduct demonstrates a need for consecutive sentences to protect the public from

future crime. We find that the evidence in the record was sufficient to support both.

               At Walker’s sentencing hearing, the trial court detailed Walker’s

history of criminal conduct, which dated back to 1991. According to the trial court’s

summary, Walker’s criminal history includes convictions for the following crimes in

the following years:

      Receiving Stolen Property: 1991

      Breaking and Entering: 1992, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010,
      2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016

      Attempted Robbery: 1992

      Aggravated Burglary: 1992 and 2014

      Attempted Escape: 2001

      Drug Possession: 2003 and 2006

      Theft: 2006 and 2007
      Aggravated Theft: 2012

      Gross Sexual Imposition: 2014

During some years, Walker was convicted multiple times for each offense. The court

pointed out that Walker had 19 prior convictions for breaking and entering. Five of

Walker’s convictions in this case were for breaking and entering.

               In light of the foregoing, the court’s finding that consecutive

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by Walker is

supported by evidence in the record. This alone is sufficient to affirm the trial court’s

decision to impose consecutive sentences.

               Accordingly, we need not address whether the record supports the

court’s additional finding that Walker’s crimes were part of a course of conduct.

Walker’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

               Judgment affirmed.

      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.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR