Court Opinion

ID: 9366996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 16:07:12.77597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.850010
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Runion, 2023-Ohio-254.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 16-22-07
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

KAISHA NIKOLE RUNION,                                     OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 21-CR-0079

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                            Date of Decision: January 30, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Howard A. Elliott for Appellant

        Eric J. Figlewicz for Appellee
Case No. 16-22-07

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant Kaisha N. Runion (“Runion”) appeals the

judgment of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial

court erred in the process of sentencing. For the reasons set forth below, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                           Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} On July 21, 2021, Runion was indicted on two counts of aggravated

trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), both felonies of the third

degree; one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), a felony of the second degree; and one count of aggravated possession

of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the third degree. Doc. 1.

       {¶3} On May 18, 2022, Runion pled guilty to two counts of aggravated

trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), both felonies of the fourth

degree, and one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), a felony of the third degree. Doc. 18. The State then moved to dismiss

the third count in the indictment. Doc. 18. On May 20, 2022, the trial court issued

a judgment entry that accepted Runion’s pleas and found her guilty. Doc. 19.

       {¶4} On August 17, 2022, Runion appeared before the trial court for

sentencing. Doc. 21. The trial court imposed prison terms for each of the three

charges against Runion. Doc. 21. The trial court then ordered Runion to serve these

three prison terms consecutively for an aggregate basic prison term of forty-eight

                                           -2-
Case No. 16-22-07

months. Doc. 21. The trial court then issued its judgment entry of sentencing on

August 19, 2022. Doc. 21.

                                Assignment of Error

       {¶5} Runion filed her notice of appeal on September 15, 2022. Doc. 28. On

appeal, she raises the following assignment of error:

       Although a Trial Court may make the required statutory findings
       as set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 29.14(C)(4) [sic]
       imposing consecutive sentences, those findings must be supported
       by matters in the record and the failure to do so renders the
       sentence invalid and the same must be reversed and set aside and
       the matter remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings.

Runion asserts that the findings that the trial court made in the process of imposing

consecutive sentences are not supported by the record.

                                  Legal Standard

       {¶6} “In order to impose consecutive sentences, a trial court is required under

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to make certain findings for the record and to incorporate these

findings into the judgment entry.” State v. Taflinger, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-17-20,

2018-Ohio-456, ¶ 14. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) reads as follows:

       (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:

                                         -3-
Case No. 16-22-07

       (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.

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). “[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, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.”

State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus.

See State v. Collins, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-22-29, 2022-Ohio-3872, ¶ 21.

       {¶7} “[T]he proper scope of felony sentence review by Ohio appellate courts

is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” State v. Redmond, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-

1066, 2019-Ohio-309, ¶ 15. This section reads, in its relevant part, as follows:

       (2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of
       this section shall review the record, including the findings
       underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing
       court.

       The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
       sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the
       sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for

                                         -4-
Case No. 16-22-07

      resentencing. The appellate court’s standard for review is not
      whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate
      court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly
      and convincingly finds either of the following:

      (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.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Thus,

      [u]nder 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 otherwise contrary to law.’
      State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.

State v. Reynolds, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-22-07, 2022-Ohio-4690, ¶ 7.

      Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof
      which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but
      not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a
      reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the
      mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
      sought to be established.

State v. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86 (3d Dist.), ¶ 12, quoting Cross v.

Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118, paragraph three of the syllabus (1954).

      ‘[A]s long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court
      engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record
      contains evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences
      should be upheld.’ Bonnell[, supra,] at ¶ 29. In other words, ‘the
      consecutive nature of the trial court’s sentencing should stand
      unless the record overwhelmingly supports a contrary result.’
      (Citation omitted.) [State v.] Withrow, [2016-Ohio-2884, 64
      N.E.3d 553,] ¶ 39 [(2d Dist.)].

                                        -5-
Case No. 16-22-07

State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29475, 2022-Ohio-4629, ¶ 48.

                                  Legal Analysis

       {¶8} On appeal, Runion does not argue that the trial court failed to make the

findings that are required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Rather, she argues that the

record does not support these findings. At sentencing, the trial court found that

consecutive sentences were appropriate because Runion committed these offenses

“as part of one or more courses of conduct and the harm caused by the two or more

of the multiple offenses committed was so great or unusual that no single prison

term * * * adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.” Tr. 13.

See R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b).

       {¶9} In this case, the indictment alleged that these offenses were committed

on November 17, November 19, and November 20, 2020. Doc. 1. Further, the trial

court considered the contents of a presentence investigation. Tr. 11. The trial court

then stated the following before making the consecutive sentences findings:

       Defendant has a minimal criminal history and yet she was
       involved in a large by Wyandot County standards enterprise to
       sell illegal drugs. When questioned, Defendant minimized her
       activity, deflects blame, claims lack of knowledge, all
       understandable, but her real attitude was captured in controlled
       buys where she’s heard bragging about the variety of drugs she
       has and how she could be the customer’s one stop shop. The drugs
       Defendant was selling hurt people. Making these drugs easily
       available feeds their additions, ruins their health, and dissuades
       them from seeking treatment. Being a part of a drug house also
       makes life miserable for your neighbors and the community.

                                         -6-
Case No. 16-22-07

Tr. 12. Having examined the materials in the record, we “can discern that the trial

court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains

evidence to support the [required] findings * * *.” Bonnell[, supra,] at ¶ 29.

       {¶10} In summary, the trial court made the findings required under R.C.

2929.14(C)(4)(b). We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not

support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Jessen,

3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-18-16, 2019-Ohio-907, ¶ 20. Thus, Runion has not carried

her burden on appeal. Accordingly, her sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                    Conclusion

       {¶11} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas is

affirmed.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

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

/hls

                                         -7-