Court Opinion

ID: 9958629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 18:08:10.659291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:31.915551
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Rogan, 2024-Ohio-1334.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 2-23-01
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

TYRELL MICHAEL ROGAN,                                     OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 2022-CR-46

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: April 9, 2024

APPEARANCES:

        Thomas J. Lucente, Jr. for Appellant

        Laia Zink for Appellee
Case No. 2-23-01

MILLER, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Tyrell Rogan (“Rogan”), appeals the December 6,

2022 judgment of sentence of the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

       {¶2} On April 5, 2022, Rogan was indicted on four counts: Count One of

felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a second-degree felony; Count

Two of assault on a peace officer in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a fourth-degree

felony; Count Three of obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A),

a fifth-degree felony; and Count Four of receiving stolen property in violation of

R.C. 2913.51(A), a fourth-degree felony. At his initial appearance on April 6, 2022,

Rogan entered not guilty pleas and was appointed trial counsel.

       {¶3} On June 30, 2022, the parties appeared for a final pretrial hearing and,

among other matters, addressed a letter the trial court received from Rogan

requesting appointment of different trial counsel. The parties discussed Rogan’s

motion in detail on the record. After discussing the matter with the court, Rogan

asked to withdraw his request for new trial counsel. The court permitted the request

to be withdrawn.

       {¶4} The next day, the parties appeared for a change-of-plea hearing, as had

been discussed the day before. Pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, Rogan

withdrew his not guilty pleas with respect to Counts Two and Three and entered

                                         -2-
Case No. 2-23-01

pleas of guilty. In exchange, the State recommended dismissal of the remaining

counts. The trial court accepted Rogan’s guilty pleas and found him guilty of assault

on a peace officer and obstructing official business. The court dismissed the other

two counts. Further, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation (“PSI”) and

modified Rogan’s bond to an own recognize bond.

       {¶5} However, Rogan failed to cooperate with the PSI writer and a bench

warrant was issued for his arrest on August 23, 2022. On September 13, 2022, the

trial court issued an additional bench warrant for his failure to appear for his

scheduled sentencing hearing.

       {¶6} Rogan was arrested on November 21, 2022. At the commencement of

the sentencing hearing on December 5, 2022, the trial court addressed another pro

se communication it received from Rogan seeking to fire his counsel. After

discussing the communication on the record, Rogan withdrew the motion and

elected to proceed with his appointed counsel.         Then, Rogan moved for a

continuance of the hearing, or, in the alternative, to withdraw his plea. The trial

court denied the motions and proceeded to sentence Rogan to 18 months in prison

for the assault on a police officer, a felony of the fourth degree, and 12 months in

prison for the obstructing official business offense, a fifth-degree felony. Further,

the trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to each other. The

judgment entry of sentence was filed on December 6, 2022.

                                         -3-
Case No. 2-23-01

       {¶7} On January 11, 2023, Rogan filed a notice of appeal. He raises three

assignments of error for our review.     For ease of discussion, we address his

assignments of error out of order.

                           Third Assignment of Error

       Defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel as
       required by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

       {¶8} In his third assignment of error, Rogan contends his trial counsel was

ineffective because counsel “scared him into a plea deal with claims that he would

not get a fair trial in Auglaize County because of his race.” (Appellant’s Brief at

19).

       {¶9} “In criminal proceedings, a defendant has the right to effective

assistance of counsel under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions.” State

v. Evick, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2019-05-010, 2020-Ohio-3072, ¶ 45.             A

defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must establish: (1)

counsel’s performance was deficient or unreasonable under the circumstances; and

(2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. State v. Kole, 92 Ohio St.3d

303, 306 (2001), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052

(1984). In order to show counsel’s conduct was deficient or unreasonable, the

defendant must overcome the presumption that counsel provided competent

representation and must show that counsel’s actions were not trial strategies

prompted by reasonable professional judgment. Strickland at 689. Counsel is

                                        -4-
Case No. 2-23-01

entitled to a strong presumption that all decisions fall within the wide range of

reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675 (1998).

Tactical or strategic decisions, even if unsuccessful, do not generally constitute

ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 255 (1991).

Rather, the errors complained of must amount to a substantial violation of counsel’s

essential duties to his client. See State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-142

(1989).

       {¶10} Prejudice results when “‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different.’” Bradley at 142, quoting Strickland at 694. “‘A reasonable probability

is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” Id., quoting

Strickland at 694.

       {¶11} In support of his argument that his trial counsel was ineffective, Rogan

argues that his trial counsel coerced him into taking a plea deal by suggesting that

he would not receive a fair trial due to his race. After reviewing the record, we

reject Rogan’s argument.

       {¶12} At a pretrial on June 30, 2022, the trial court addressed the letter it

received from Rogan requesting that the trial court appoint him different counsel.

After speaking to the trial court, Rogan stated that he wanted his trial counsel to

continue to represent him and requested to withdraw his request for the appointment

of new counsel. Then, the following discussion ensued:

                                        -5-
Case No. 2-23-01

      [Rogan]:         I’m going to continue.

      [Trial court]:   You’re going to continue?

      [Rogan]:         Having him as [my] attorney.

      [Trial court]:   Okay. So then I will encourage the two (2) of
                       you to spend enough time together to be able to
                       figure out your decision [regarding the pending
                       plea offer], you know, figure out where we’re
                       going and what we’re going to schedule. I will
                       ask then, and I’ll note for the record, but I do
                       have to ask a couple of questions. Mr. Rogan,
                       did anybody threaten you or intimidate you to get
                       you to withdraw your request?

      [Rogan]:         No.

      [Trial court]:   Okay. You’re doing this * * * of your own free
                       will?

      [Rogan]:         Yeah.

      [Trial court]:   Okay. I mean, it wouldn’t be fair if somebody
                       was being threatened over at the jail to, “Oh, you
                       gotta do this, or do that”, or even if [your trial
                       counsel] or somebody else was threatening you,
                       I’d want to know about that. Have you been
                       threatened in any way?

      [Rogan]:         No.

      [Trial court]:   Okay, okay. So the Court will allow the Defense
                       to withdraw * * * the request that he sent in the
                       letter to get a new lawyer. And then I will ask
                       Counsel, discuss this with each other * * *.

      ***

                                   -6-
Case No. 2-23-01

      [Trial counsel]:   My client would like to address the Court about
                         his concerns.

      ***

      [Rogan]:           I’m just going to probably take a plea bargain
                         because someone told my sister in court that the
                         jury is going to be all prejudice [sic] anyway, and

      [Trial court]:     Who told your sister in court?

      [Trial counsel]:   Your Honor, I will tell you, I talked to his family,
                         and told them, bluntly, that a jury in this county
                         is going to be most likely all white, and it is a
                         possibility that some of those jurors might hold
                         racist biases, that is a possibility.

      [Trial court]:     Well, you know, your job is to ferret those people
                         out and kick them off the jury.

      [Trial counsel]:   Absolutely, Your Honor.

      [Trial court]:     Nevertheless, [counsel], you have the right to file
                         an appropriate motion, either before trial or in the
                         middle of trial during voir dire if, in fact, you
                         can’t seat an impartial jury.

      [Trial counsel]:   Absolutely, Your Honor. If that were to take
                         place, I would do that.

      [Trial court]:     But you’ve got to figure out what motion to file.
                         Mr. Rogan, I will tell you that it is my job to
                         conduct a fair trial. Now that means that I don’t
                         always rule in your favor, that means that I don’t
                         always rule in the favor of the State. I have to
                         call it like I see it under the rules, but it also
                         means that one of my jobs is to ferret out bias and
                         to try to make sure that every jury is fair and
                         impartial. The truth is, there’s no way to know
                         everything that goes on through somebody else’s
                         mind, so we’ll do our best to allow you and your

                                      -7-
Case No. 2-23-01

                           attorney, through your attorney, to ask the
                           appropriate questions of the jurors, to ferret out
                           if any of them hold bias or prejudice that they are
                           aware of. Because the truth is also, sometimes
                           we don’t know what all bias is in the back of our
                           mind that we don’t really realize. So, actually,
                           judges get training on our own bias to try to
                           consciously become aware of the possibility of
                           bias, and cultural bias, and that’s just not race,
                           but that’s also cultural, that’s also gender, and all
                           kinds of things. So I get your concern, I
                           understand your concern. I’ll tell you, I’ll do my
                           best to make sure that a jury that’s selected is fair
                           and impartial. And you need to talk to your
                           attorney about what your options are with respect
                           to requests of the Court in that regard.

      [Trial counsel]:     Yes, Your Honor.

      [Trial court]:       Does that answer your question enough for now
                           at least?

      [Rogan]:             Yeah, I’m just, -- I’m going to take the plea
                           bargain, cause I just don’t want to take the
                           chance.

      [Trial court]:       Well, look it [sic], you’re not going to take a plea
                           bargain on the basis that somebody, like,
                           certainly that the Court has in any way implied
                           that well, you better take this plea deal because a
                           jury will be biased. And certainly I won’t even
                           accept a plea to something you did not do, I want
                           you to understand that. And I don’t want you to
                           comment on it, you talk it over with your
                           attorney. But one of the things that your attorney
                           knows, is that if you didn’t do an offense, I won’t
                           take a plea to it. * * *

(June 30, 2022 Tr. at 10-13).

                                        -8-
Case No. 2-23-01

       {¶13} The next day, Rogan withdrew his previously-entered not-guilty pleas

and pled guilty pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement. The trial court ordered a

PSI and scheduled the matter for sentencing. However, Rogan did not appear for

sentencing and the trial court issued warrants for his arrest.

       {¶14} Rogan was apprehended and the trial court was able to proceed with

sentencing on December 5, 2022. Rogan sent a second letter to the trial court three

days before his scheduled sentencing hearing seeking new counsel on the same

grounds he raised previously. The court addressed this issue prior to sentencing.

       [Trial court]:        I will tell you that we have had trials with persons
                             of color who have been acquitted, we have had
                             trials of persons of color who have been
                             convicted. And I do what I can and instruct
                             juries accordingly, and allow voir dire, meaning
                             the jury selection process to address those types
                             of issues, and I took an oath concerning my
                             obligation to administer justice fairly and
                             impartially without respect to who the person is,
                             meaning, whether they’re rich, or poor, black, or
                             white, no matter what. And we are constantly
                             being educated, reeducated, to bring to our
                             attention, being judges generally, the built-in
                             biases that we don’t even recognize sometimes.
                             So we try to make people aware of that, and I try
                             to be aware of that.

                             Nevertheless, you’re here today for sentencing
                             on this case, on something that was originally set
                             for sentencing in September. Now, if you insist
                             on firing your attorney to go forward today and
                             represent yourself, I will allow that, because
                             everyone has a constitutional right to represent
                             themself [sic].       Also everyone has a
                             constitutional right to have counsel. I’m not

                                          -9-
Case No. 2-23-01

                             hearing anything that would disqualify [your
                             trial counsel] from representing you, based upon
                             his analysis that he provided to your family,
                             concerning some of the factors that he was
                             concerned about. And I’m sure that when
                             representing someone of color that they’re going
                             to make every effort to address that, in the voir
                             dire jury selection process, to try to ensure that
                             the jurors are not going to allow bias or prejudice
                             to impact their judgment. I think it would be
                             naïve to believe that any of us is free from bias,
                             you, me, or anybody else. The point is, are you
                             aware of those biases, and can you set them aside
                             and not affect your judgment on any particular
                             matter? So the choice is yours, whether you wish
                             to have [your current counsel] represent you here
                             on this sentencing, or whether you wish to
                             represent yourself. I would encourage you to
                             make use of counsel provided to you, as I believe
                             that he can certainly, professionally, present to
                             the Court the mitigation that you Folks are
                             prepared to present, but I will not force you to
                             have an attorney that you wish to fire. But I will
                             go forward today on sentencing, you don’t get to
                             pick your attorney, I see no reason why [your
                             current trial counsel] should not represent you.
                             So this is not, you know, - and you waited until
                             Friday the 2nd [to request new trial counsel]
                             when a sentencing * * * hearing was happening
                             on Monday the 5th, and this matter was
                             rescheduled upon your arrest on November
                             22nd. So it’s your choice, do you wish to have
                             [your current trial counsel] represent you for the
                             sentencing hearing today or not?

       [Rogan]:              I mean, I’m already here, I might as well.

(Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 6-8).

                                         -10-
Case No. 2-23-01

       {¶15} Although Rogan argues that his trial counsel coerced him into

accepting a plea agreement by claiming he would not receive a fair trial because of

his race, the record does not support his claim. Rather, the record indicates that

Rogan’s trial counsel, as part of a broader conversation and analysis regarding the

strength of the State’s case and the decision of whether to accept a plea offer or take

the matter to trial, discussed the demographics of the local community and

acknowledged the possibility that a member of the jury may have some biased or

prejudiced beliefs. However, it is also clear from the record that his trial counsel

was aware of the processes to select an impartial jury to ensure his client received a

fair trial and was prepared to make the necessary inquiries during voir dire if Rogan

elected to go to trial. While trial counsel’s statements may have been part of

Rogan’s analysis when deciding whether to accept a plea offer or go to trial, the

record does not support Rogan’s claim that his trial counsel “coerced” him into

accepting a plea offer rather than going to trial. Furthermore, Rogan’s concerns

were discussed on two separate occasions, and both times Rogan elected to continue

with the representation. Moreover, we note that trial counsel was successful in

getting the State to dismiss the most serious charge of felonious assault, a second-

degree felony, as well as fourth-degree felony receiving stolen property.

       {¶16} Accordingly, we do not find that Rogan received ineffective assistance

from his trial counsel. His third assignment of error is overruled.

                                         -11-
Case No. 2-23-01

                            First Assignment of Error

       The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s
       motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

       {¶17} In his first assignment of error, Rogan argues that the trial court abused

its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

       {¶18} “The decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw a

guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Xie, 62 Ohio

St.3d 521 (1992), paragraph two of the syllabus. “Therefore, appellate review of a

trial court’s decision to deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is

limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Keehn, 3d Dist.

Henry No. 7-14-05, 2014-Ohio-3872, ¶ 14. An abuse of discretion is more than a

mere error in judgment; it suggests that a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157-158 (1980). “When

applying this standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for

that of the trial court.” Keehn at ¶ 14, citing State v. Adams, 3d Dist. Defiance No.

4-09-16, 2009-Ohio-6863, ¶ 33.

       {¶19} A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is governed by Crim.R. 32.1,

which provides:

       A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only
       before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court
       after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit
       the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.

                                         -12-
Case No. 2-23-01

Although “a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and

liberally granted[,] * * * a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a

plea prior to sentencing. Xie at 527.

       {¶20} “A trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a

reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.” Id. at paragraph one

of the syllabus.

       When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a presentence motion to
       withdraw a guilty plea, this court considers several factors, including:
       (1) whether the withdrawal will prejudice the prosecution; (2) the
       representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; (3) the extent of
       the hearing held pursuant to Crim.R. 11; (4) the extent of the hearing
       on the motion to withdraw the plea; (5) whether the trial court gave
       full and fair consideration of the motion; (6) whether the timing of the
       motion was reasonable; (7) the stated reasons for the motion; (8)
       whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and
       potential sentences; and (9) whether the accused was perhaps not
       guilty or had a complete defense to the charges.

State v. Liles, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-69, 2019-Ohio-3029, ¶ 11. “None of the

factors is determinative on its own and there may be numerous additional aspects

‘weighed’ in each case.” State v. North, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-18, 2015-Ohio-

720, ¶ 16.

       {¶21} Rogan argues that, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the above-

listed factors weigh in favor of him withdrawing his guilty plea. After reviewing

the record, we disagree.

       {¶22} The parties arrived for sentencing on December 5, 2022. As addressed

in great detail in our analysis of Rogan’s third assignment of error, at the onset of

                                        -13-
Case No. 2-23-01

the hearing, the trial court addressed a communication it received from Rogan

requesting new trial counsel. After the parties discussed Rogan’s request on the

record, Rogan elected to withdraw his request for new counsel and proceed with the

hearing. Shortly thereafter, the trial court engaged in the following conversation

with Rogan:

      [Trial court]:       Mr. Rogan, is there any reason why sentencing
                           should not go forward?

      [Rogan]:             I would like a little bit more time but.

      [Trial court]:       But you pled guilty back in July?

      [Rogan]:             Umm hum.

      [Trial court]:       And we’ve given you a lot of time. You said
                           you’d like to have more time, but that’s not a
                           reason, so I’m going to deny that request. Is
                           there any other reason, other than you’d like to
                           have more time? Sir?

      [Rogan]:             No.

      [Trial court]:       What’s the State’s positon on sentencing on this?

      [State]:             Your Honor, the State’s recommending the
                           maximum. The Defendant has a prior criminal
                           history. He has a pending felony case in
                           Bellefontaine at this time, -- * * *

      [Trial counsel]:     Your Honor, my client is inquiring about trying
                           to take this plea bargain back.

      [Trial court]:       You can make a motion.

                                       -14-
Case No. 2-23-01

       [Trial counsel]:      Well, I would move to withdraw the formerly
                             entered * * * [g]uily plea * * * to the two (2)
                             charges.

(Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 8-9). The trial court then explained the potential consequences

Rogan could be facing by withdrawing his guilty plea, including a conviction for

felonious assault, a second-degree felony. (Id. at 9-11). The trial court took a recess

to allow Rogan to consult with his trial counsel on the matter. When the trial court

reconvened, the following discussion was had on the record.

       [Trial counsel]:       * * * I would first ask the Court to continue this
                             hearing, so that my client can speak with his
                             family before he makes a final decision.

       [Trial court]:        The Defendant has had ample time to discuss this
                             matter with his family over the last several
                             months, including the last twelve (12) days. The
                             Court finds the motion to continue not well taken
                             and the same is denied. With respect to the
                             motion to withdraw?

       [Trial counsel]:      So are you claiming, why do you want to
                             withdraw the motion?

       [Rogan]:              I just don’t think I’m guilty.

       [Trial counsel]:      So you’re claiming actual innocence?

       [Trial court]:        If you can speak up a little louder, if you intend
                             it to come to me, I’d appreciate it.

       [Trial counsel]:      Yes, Your Honor, my client would wish to
                             withdraw his guilty plea due * * * he is claiming
                             he’s actually innocent of the charges. I think
                             that’s the only reason we can provide.

                                         -15-
Case No. 2-23-01

       [Trial court]:        Very well. The Court finds that the Defendant
                             has simply had a change of heart. The Court had
                             a previous colloquy pursuant to Criminal Rule
                             11, he has delayed through failing to appear, and
                             he has continued to try to delay the sentencing
                             hearing today. The Court finds that his request
                             is not well taken, the same is denied.

(Id. at 14-15). The trial court then proceeded to sentencing.

       {¶23} When viewing the record in light of the factors set forth above, we find

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rogan’s motion to

withdraw his guilty plea.

       {¶24} First, whether the State would be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the

guilty pleas. Although at the time the motion was made neither party argued

prejudice, it is evident that if there is prejudice, it was the result of Rogan’s failure

to appear and lack of cooperation with the PSI writer. Notably, the trial court had

to issue two bench warrants due to Rogan’s actions and lack of cooperation.

       {¶25} Second, Rogan alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for

allegedly using a “racial threat * * * to get [Rogan] to accept a plea bargain rather

than take it to trial.” (Appellant’s Brief at 8). We previously addressed Rogan’s

concerns regarding his trial counsel’s representation, particularly as it relates to this

specific issue, and we concluded that the record did not support Rogan’s allegation

that his trial counsel was ineffective.      Likewise, here, we find that Rogan’s

contention that his trial counsel coerced him into accepting a plea agreement is not

supported by the record.

                                          -16-
Case No. 2-23-01

       {¶26} With respect to the third and eighth factors, Rogan concedes that the

trial court’s Crim.R. 11 colloquy was proper. Although Rogan, nonetheless, argues

that he did not comprehend what was happening at the change-of-plea hearing, the

record, once again, does not support this contention. Although Rogan did, at one

point express confusion regarding the specifics of the process and the procedures,

he was given an opportunity to address any questions to his trial counsel. Indeed,

the trial court recessed for the purpose of allowing Rogan to consult his trial counsel.

When the parties returned on the record, Rogan indicated that his trial counsel

answered his questions and that he was prepared to proceed.

       {¶27} Regarding the fourth and fifth factors, although the court did not

postpone sentencing in order to conduct a separate hearing on this motion, the record

indicates that the trial court, nonetheless, gave the motion full and fair consideration.

The trial court gave Rogan and his trial counsel the opportunity to be heard on the

motion. However, given the history of the case and the context of the motion, the

trial court was able to ascertain very quickly that Rogan’s motion to withdraw his

guilty plea, after his motion to continue and his motion for new counsel were both

denied, was a thinly-veiled delay tactic.

       {¶28} Next, the sixth factor, regarding the reasonableness of the timing of

the motion, decidedly weighs against Rogan. The oral motion was made at the

sentencing hearing, which had itself been delayed for several months through

Rogan’s failure to appear and lack of cooperation with the PSI writer. At no time

                                          -17-
Case No. 2-23-01

in the more than five months that elapsed since the change-of-plea hearing did

Rogan request to withdraw his plea or assert his innocence.

       {¶29} Finally, with respect to the seventh and ninth factors, Rogan did assert

a claim of actual innocence.       However, the verity of the claim is severely

undermined by the timing of the request—with the request being made at the

eleventh hour and directly after the denial of his motion for a continuance. In the

words of his trial counsel, the basis of the claim was actual innocence because that

was the only option available to him. (Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 14-15).

       {¶30} After reviewing all the applicable factors, we conclude that the trial

court did not err by denying Rogan’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Rogan’s

first assignment of error is overruled.

                           Second Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred when it sentenced defendant to prison and
       ran the terms consecutive to each other.

       {¶31} In his second assignment of error, Rogan argues that the trial court

erred by imposing consecutive sentences because the consecutive sentences are not

supported by the record. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

                                 Standard of Review

       {¶32} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse a sentence

“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not

support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is

                                          -18-
Case No. 2-23-01

otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,

¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the

trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id.

at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the

syllabus.

                                  Relevant Authority

       {¶33} In his assignment of error, Rogan argues that the trial court erred by

imposing consecutive sentences. “Except as provided in * * * division (C) of

section 2929.14, * * * a prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall

be served concurrently with any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of

imprisonment imposed by a court of this state, another state, or the United States.”

R.C. 2929.41(A). R.C. 2929.14(C) provides:

       (4) * * * [T]he 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
       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

                                          -19-
Case No. 2-23-01

       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.

       {¶34} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a trial court to make specific findings on

the record when imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Hites, 3d Dist. Hardin

No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 11. Specifically, the trial court must find: (1)

consecutive sentences are necessary to either protect the public or punish the

offender; (2) the sentences would not be disproportionate to the offense committed;

and (3) one of the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) applies. Id.

       {¶35} The trial court must state the required findings at the sentencing

hearing prior to imposing consecutive sentences and incorporate those findings into

its sentencing entry. State v. Sharp, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01, 2014-Ohio-

4140, ¶ 50, citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. A

trial court “has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings” and is not

“required to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute, provided that

the necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated into the

sentencing entry.” Bonnell at ¶ 37.

                                         -20-
Case No. 2-23-01

                                       Analysis

       {¶36} Rogan does not argue that the trial court failed to make the requisite

consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Rather, he contends

that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.

       At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:

       The two (2) offenses that were committed as part of one (1) course of
       conduct, which I agree with Counsel, that it was one continuing course
       of conduct, but the harm caused 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, and he’s shown this pattern in the past. And that
       the offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
       consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
       crime by the offender. The Court finds that consecutive service is
       necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the
       offender, and consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
       seriousness of the offender’s conduct, and the danger the offender
       poses to the public.

(Dec. 5, 2022 Tr. at 23). The court memorialized those findings in its sentencing

entry. (Doc. No. 61). Accordingly, the record reflects that the trial court made the

appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing consecutive sentences and

incorporated those findings into its sentencing entry.

       {¶37} Rogan concedes that the trial court made the required findings

pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) prior to imposing the consecutive sentences.

Nevertheless, Rogan contends the consecutive-sentencing findings are not

supported by the record. In support of his argument, Rogan summarily argues that

“the record does not show that [his] conduct was so great or unusual” as to merit

                                         -21-
Case No. 2-23-01

consecutive sentences. (Appellant’s Brief at 18). “‘[A] defendant has the burden

of affirmatively demonstrating the error of the trial court on appeal.’” State v.

Costell, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-15-11, 2016-Ohio-3386, ¶ 86, quoting State v.

Stelzer, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23174, 2006-Ohio-6912, ¶ 7. If an argument exists

that can support an assignment of error, it is not this court’s duty to root it out. State

v. Shanklin, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-13-23, 2014-Ohio-5624, ¶ 31.

       {¶38} Moreover, the record does support the trial court’s finding that the

harm caused was so great or unusual to have merited consecutive sentences. The

record indicates that Rogan intentionally released several large dogs on officers who

arrived at his location to arrest him. During the ensuing pursuit, one of the officers

fell and broke a bone in his wrist on his dominant hand. The officer’s victim impact

statement indicated that he now hesitates when confronted with situations involving

large dogs. Additionally, the officer noted continuing pain in his wrist, which, at

the time of sentencing, still caused him pain and made it difficult for him to remain

physically fit, as required for his employment. Furthermore, Rogan’s criminal

history included a prior conviction for resisting arrest. Accordingly, we find that

the record supports the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing findings.

       {¶39} Further, to the extent that Rogan suggests that the trial court did not

conduct a proportionality analysis, we note that in State v. Gwynne, ____ Ohio St.3d

_____, 2023-Ohio-3851, which was decided while Rogan’s case was pending, the

Supreme Court of Ohio reiterated that “[a]ppellate review turns on whether the trial

                                          -22-
Case No. 2-23-01

court’s findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record, and if the

evidence supports the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, the analysis ends

there.” Id. at ¶ 24.

         {¶40} Accordingly, Rogan’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                     Conclusion

         {¶41} For the foregoing reasons, Rogan’s assignments of error are overruled.

Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned

and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Auglaize County Court of Common

Pleas.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

/hls

                                         -23-