Court Opinion

ID: 9399538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 16:11:48.866554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.353124
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Settlemire, 2023-Ohio-1852.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                                CASE NO. 9-22-33

        v.

JON M. SETTLEMIRE,                                         OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                             Trial Court No. 20-CR-458

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                               Date of Decision: June 5, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        W. Joseph Edwards for Appellant

        Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-22-33

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jon Settlemire (“Settlemire”), appeals the April

29, 2022 judgment of sentence entered against him in the Marion County Court of

Common Pleas. Specifically, Settlemire challenges the trial court’s imposition of

consecutive sentences. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

                                Procedural History

       {¶2} This case originated on December 9, 2020, when the Marion County

Grand Jury returned a 45-count indictment charging Settlemire with a variety of

felony-level crimes.

       {¶3} On February 25, 2021, an arraignment was held and Settlemire entered

a plea of not guilty to the indictment. Twelve months of pretrial proceedings then

ensued.

       {¶4} On February 23, 2022, Settlemire entered a negotiated plea of guilty to

five crimes. Specifically, Settlemire pled guilty to Count 1 of the indictment,

amended to a charge of Theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, a fourth-degree felony;

to Count 9 of the indictment, a charge of Forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31, a

fifth-degree felony; to Count 14 of the indictment, a charge of Forgery in violation

of R.C. 2913.31, a fifth-degree felony; to Count 19 of the indictment, a charge of

Theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, a fourth-degree felony; and to Count 37 of the

indictment, amended to a charge of Forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31, a third-

                                        -2-
Case No. 9-22-33

degree felony.   In exchange for the guilty pleas as outlined, the prosecution

dismissed the remaining counts of the indictment. The trial court accepted the guilty

pleas and ordered a presentence investigation.

       {¶5} On April 28, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held. At that time, the trial

court imposed a sentenced of 17 months in prison on Count 1, 11 months in prison

on Count 9, 11 months in prison on Count 14, 17 months in prison on Count 19, and

30 months in prison on Count 37. The trial court ordered that all counts be served

consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 86 months in prison.

       {¶6} On June 10, 2022, Settlemire filed the instant appeal.

                               Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred when it imposed a consecutive sentence in
       lieu of a concurrent sentence.

       {¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Settlemire argues that the trial court

erred in ordering that the sentences in this case be served consecutively.

Specifically, Settlemire asserts that the aggregate sentence here is disproportionate

and overly severe when compared to the criminal conduct of which he was

convicted.

       {¶8} When imposing consecutive sentences, “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, syllabus.

                                         -3-
Case No. 9-22-33

        {¶9} 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 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} In State v. Gwynne, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4607, the

Supreme Court of Ohio recently addressed consecutive felony sentencing at length.1

In Gwynne, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that “[w]hen a person is sentenced for

having committed multiple offenses, the presumption is that those sentences will be

imposed concurrently, not consecutively. See R.C. 2929.41(A).” Id., at ¶ 10. The

1
 We note that a motion for reconsideration was filed in Gwynne on January 3, 2023, and that motion is still
pending as of the date of our opinion in this case.

                                                   -4-
Case No. 9-22-33

Court in Gwynne further noted that defendants may appeal consecutive sentences,

and that “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) states that an appellate court may increase, reduce,

or otherwise modify a sentence or that it may vacate the sentence and remand the

case for resentencing when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not

support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” Id. at ¶ 11.

       {¶11} In Gwynne, the Ohio Supreme Court then went on to set forth

“practical guidance” for consecutive-sentence review on appeal, noting that the first

step “is to ensure that the consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)

have been made” as to “necessity and proportionality, as well as the third required

finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c).” Id. at ¶ 24-25. If the reviewing

court determines that the necessary consecutive-sentence findings were made, it

“may then determine whether the record clearly and convincingly supports those

findings.” Id. at ¶ 26. If “one of the consecutive-sentence findings is found not to

be supported by the record under the clear-and-convincing standard provided by

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), then the trial court’s order of consecutive sentences must be

either modified or vacated by the appellate court. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” Id.

       {¶12} The Ohio Supreme Court further held in Gwynne that an appellate

court’s review of the findings and record “is de novo with the ultimate inquiry being

whether it clearly and convincingly finds—in other words, has a firm conviction or

                                         -5-
Case No. 9-22-33

belief—that the evidence in the record does not support the consecutive-sentence

findings that the trial court made.” Id. at ¶ 27.

       {¶13} Finally, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded in Gwynne that “R.C.

2929.14(C)(4) requires trial courts to consider the overall number of consecutive

sentences and the aggregate sentence to be imposed when making the necessity and

proportionality findings required for the imposition of consecutive sentences.” Id.

at ¶ 31.

       {¶14} In the instant case, our de novo review of Settlemire’s sentences

reflects that the trial court made the requisite consecutive-sentence findings

pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those

findings into the judgment entry of sentencing. We also cannot conclude that the

record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings as they

pertain to the sentencing order on each count, particularly the finding with which

Settlemire takes issue on appeal, being that consecutive sentences are not

disproportionate to the seriousness of Settlemire’s conduct in the case and that his

history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary

to protect the public from future crime by him.

       {¶15} At the time of the negotiated guilty plea, the parties agreed that this

case involved the following general facts:

       [S]hould this case had [sic] gone to trial, the * * * evidence would
       have established that the defendant did knowingly in a continuing

                                          -6-
Case No. 9-22-33

       course of conduct with the offenses committed in Marion County with
       the intent to deceive, forged the names, the signatures of various
       family members to include Bonnie Settlemire, Joshua Settlemire and
       Vance Settlemire on various documents inclusive of powers of
       attorney, credit applications, loan applications, and checks. * * * The
       signatures were done without the permission or authority or * * *
       without the knowledge of the individuals whose names were forged.

       Through the forgeries, the defendant committed the act of –
       committed acts that constitute theft of money within the statutory
       limits of the felony of the fourth degree. In that act, the defendant did
       knowingly exert control over or obtain money by deception through
       the acts of forgery that were identified in the previous counts.

(2/23/22 Tr., 30-31).

       {¶16} As the trial court noted when imposing sentence, and as confirmed by

the record, Settlemire’s multiple crimes of Theft and Forgery resulted in a loss of

nearly $50,000.00 to the various victims, and the multiple victims in this case

suffered serious economic harm.         Settlemire’s relationship with the victims

facilitated the offenses, with one of those victims being Settlemire’s elderly mother.

Settlemire also had three prior felony convictions, including one in federal court for

Wire Fraud, one in Wood County for Passing Bad Checks, and one in Union County

for Theft and Insurance Fraud, all of which involved crimes of dishonesty and

conduct similar to that in this case. In each of those prior cases, Settlemire had

violated the terms of supervision and was on community control in the Union

County case when he engaged in the criminal conduct at issue here. Finally, as the

trial court noted, Settlemire was initially charged with 45 felony counts in this case,

                                         -7-
Case No. 9-22-33

and “‘[a] sentencing court may consider charges that have been dismissed or

reduced pursuant to a plea agreement.’” State v. Lucius 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-18-

31, 2019-Ohio-741, ¶ 21, quoting State v. Parsons, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 12 BE

11, 2013-Ohio-1281, ¶ 18, citing State v. Starkey, 7th Dist. No. 06MA110, 2007–

Ohio–6702, ¶ 2; State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 35, 544 N.E.2d 895 (1989).

       {¶17} Given those facts, the number of consecutive sentences and the

aggregate sentence here were not disproportionate or overly severe when compared

to the criminal conduct of which Settlemire was found guilty.

       {¶18} For all of the reasons noted, we find that the trial court’s imposition of

consecutive sentences on all counts was appropriate, and we therefore overrule the

assignment of error.

       {¶19} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant in the

particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Marion County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                 Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/jlr

                                         -8-