Court Opinion

ID: 9882610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:17:24.835295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:38.448307
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2023-Ohio-3546.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio                                      Court of Appeals No. L-23-1034

        Appellee                                   Trial Court No. CR0202202554

v.

Dennis E. Robinson                                 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                  Decided: September 29, 2023

                                               *****

        Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

                                               *****

        SULEK, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Dennis E. Robinson, appeals from the January 23, 2023 judgment

of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an indefinite prison

sentence of 12 ½ to 17 ½ years following his guilty pleas to involuntary manslaughter

and tampering with evidence. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.
                          I. Facts and Procedural Background

       {¶ 2} On September 13, 2022, the Lucas County Grand Jury indicted Robinson on

charges of murder and felonious assault, Counts 1 and 2. By agreement of the parties,

two additional counts, involuntary manslaughter, Count 3, and tampering with evidence,

Count 4, were charged by information. All of the charges stemmed from the

September 3, 2022 stabbing death of an individual in Toledo, Ohio.

       {¶ 3} Pursuant to a plea agreement, Robinson pleaded guilty to involuntary

manslaughter and tampering with evidence. The state agreed to dismiss the remaining

charges at sentencing.

       {¶ 4} At the January 17, 2023 sentencing hearing, Robinson’s counsel advocated

for community control in light of Robinson’s age (55) and his substance abuse and

mental health issues. Counsel stated that Robinson took the upbringings of his six

children seriously. Robinson then expressed his remorse for the incident. He stated that

he had a knife for protection while staying in a vacant house. Robinson stated that he

was high at the time of the stabbing and after the victim poured beer on him, he “pulled a

knife out and tried to run him off the porch and I accident[ly] stabbed him and I’m sorry.”

The victim’s brother gave an impact statement.

       {¶ 5} Imposing sentence, the trial court stated that it considered the record, oral

statements, any victim impact statements, the presentence investigation report, and the

principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.191 (sic) and the seriousness and

2.
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. The court then sentenced Robinson to

consecutive sentences, finding:

             The court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect

      the public from future crime or to punish the Defendant and are not

      disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct or the

      danger the Defendant poses to the public.

             The court further finds that these offenses were committed as part of

      one or more course of conduct and that the harm caused was so great or

      unusual that no single prison term for any offenses committed as part of the

      courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s

      conduct. The Defendant’s criminal history requires consecutive sentences.

      {¶ 6} Robinson now appeals the judgment entry on sentencing.

                                  II. Assignment of Error

      {¶ 7} Robinson asserts the following assignment of error on appeal:

             The record on appeal does not support the trial court’s imposition of

      consecutive sentences by clear and convincing evidence.

                                       III. Analysis

      {¶ 8} Robinson argues in his sole assignment of error that that his consecutive

sentence is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Sentencing challenges are

reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The statute permits an appellate court to increase,

3.
reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate a sentence and remand the matter for

resentencing where the court finds:

             (a) That 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;

             (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

      {¶ 9} Prior to imposing a consecutive sentence, a trial court must consider the

factors under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which relevantly provides:

             (4) 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

4.
       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.

       {¶ 10} When imposing consecutive sentences, “[t]he trial court must engage in the

correct analysis, state its statutory findings during the sentencing hearing, and incorporate

those findings into its sentencing entry.” State v. Gregory, 2023-Ohio-331, 208 N.E.3d

166, ¶ 110 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-493, 108

N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 253; State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d

659, ¶ 37.

       {¶ 11} Robinson first argues that concurrent sentences were appropriate in light of

the trial court’s question at sentencing regarding whether there was an agreement that the

offenses would merge or whether they were committed with a separate animus. This

assertion is unpersuasive because the state clearly indicated that the offenses were

5.
committed with a separate animus and there was no objection or argument to the

contrary.

       {¶ 12} Relying on State v. Gwynne, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4607,1 Robinson

next argues that his age and long-term substance abuse and mental health issues

demonstrate that his aggregate total sentence of approximately 12 to 17 years exceeds

what is necessary to protect the public and inflict punishment and is therefore

disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses to the public.

       {¶ 13} In Gwynne, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained a trial court’s obligations

when imposing consecutive sentences and the scope of an appellate court’s review of the

sentence. The court interpreted R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) as requiring the trial court’s

consideration of the number of consecutive sentences and the aggregate term of the

consecutive sentences that will result.

       {¶ 14} Appellate review begins with a determination of whether the trial court

made the required R.C. 2929.14 (C)(4) findings. If not, the sentence if contrary to law

and it must be modified or vacated and remanded for resentencing. Id. at ¶ 25. If the

findings have been made, appellate review of consecutive sentences under R.C.

2953.08(G)(2), requires that the court consider only the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings

actually made by the trial court, the court then determines whether clear and convincing

1
 An application for reconsideration was filed in Gwynne on January 3, 2023, and remains
pending at the time of this decision.

6.
evidence supports the findings, and finally, whether the findings are supported by the

record. An appellate court’s review of the record is de novo and assesses the “both the

quantity and quality of the evidence.” Id. at ¶ 23, 29.

       {¶ 15} Further, the “‘proportionality analysis [required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]

“does not occur in a vacuum, but, instead, focuses upon the defendant’s current conduct

and whether this conduct, in conjunction with the defendant’s past conduct, allows a

finding that consecutive service is not disproportionate [to the seriousness of the

defendant’s conduct and to the danger the defendant poses to the public].”’” State v.

Johnson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1095, 2023-Ohio-2008, ¶ 35, quoting State v. Kelly,

2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-8, 2021-Ohio-325, ¶ 80, quoting State v. Crim, 2d Dist.

Clark No. 2018-CA-38, 2018-Ohio-4996, ¶ 11.

       {¶ 16} Here, the trial court made the necessary R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. The

court first stated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and

punish the offender. Although the trial court needed to find only one of the factors under

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c), the court found that the offenses were committed as part of a

course of conduct and the harm caused was so great that no single prison term was

sufficient, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b), and that Robinson’s criminal history required

consecutive sentences, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c).

       {¶ 17} Next, under Gwynne this court conducts a de novo review considering

whether the record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court’s findings. The

7.
record reflects that Robinson stabbed and killed the victim for pouring beer on him

during a verbal altercation. Though admitting his guilt, Robinson claimed that he

“accidently” stabbed the victim when trying run him off the porch. The record also

reveals that instead of providing aid, Robinson left the scene and the weapon was never

recovered. Robinson had an extensive criminal record including six prior felony and 22

misdemeanor convictions; he had two juvenile felony convictions.

       {¶ 18} Reviewing the record de novo, we do not clearly and convincingly find that

it does not support the trial court’s findings. The above facts do not lead this court to a

firm belief that a lengthy sentence is not necessary to protect the public from Robinson.

Nor do we have a firm belief that the sentence is disproportionate to Robinson’s conduct.

Robinson’s assignment of error is not well-taken.

                                      IV. Conclusion

       {¶ 19} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed. Robinson is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant

to App.R. 24.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

8.
                                                                               State of Ohio
                                                                      v. Dennis E. Robinson
                                                                                  L-23-1034

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, 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.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

9.