Court Opinion

ID: 9901935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:08:25.886178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:41.798874
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Pacheco, 2023-Ohio-4208.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                      :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                :
                                                             No. 112268
                 v.                                 :

JASON PACHECO,                                      :

                 Defendant-Appellant.               :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
                           AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 22, 2023

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                          Case No. CR-22-668598-A

                                              Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Eben O. McNair, Daniel Cleary, and
                 Samantha Sohl, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for
                 appellee.

                 The Law Office of Schlachet and Levy and Eric M. Levy,
                 for appellant.

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:

                   Defendant-appellant, Jason Pacheco (“Pacheco”) appeals his

convictions stemming from a bar fight and car crash on December 24, 2021, that
killed one victim and seriously injured another. For the following reasons, we affirm

in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

Procedural and Factual History

               On December 24, 2021, Pacheco and his friends were involved in a

disturbance at a bar. Pacheco and his friends left the bar and drove south on W. 25th

Street, where he ran a red light. Pacheco was speeding at approximately 60 m.p.h.

when he crashed into Ms. Hana Mohamed’s minivan. Ms. Mohammed was partially

ejected from the vehicle. Ms. Mohammed and her mother, Naderah Iwais, were

transported to the hospital with serious injuries. Ms. Iwais succumbed to her

injuries. Pacheco and his passengers fled the scene of the accident. The next day,

Pacheco contacted the police.

               Pacheco was indicted on March 15, 2022, in C.P. No. CR-22-668598

in a 16-count indictment stemming from the incident at the bar and the collision.

On October 31, 2022, Pacheco pleaded guilty to amended Count 1, felonious assault,

a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); Count 2, aggravated

vehicular homicide, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C.

2903.06(A)(2)(a), which merged with Count 1 for sentencing; Count 4, aggravated

vehicular assault, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b);

Count 6, failure to stop after accident, a felony of the third degree, in violation of

R.C. 4549.02(A)(1); Count 7, failure to stop after accident, a felony of the fifth

degree, in violation of R.C. 4549.02(A)(1); Count 9, riot, a misdemeanor of the first
degree, in violation of R.C. 2917.03(A)(1). The trial court ordered a presentence

investigation (“PSI”), and sentencing was set for November 30, 2022.

              Pacheco was sentenced to six to nine years on Count 1, felonious

assault. Count 1 was subject to an indefinite six to nine years under the Reagan

Tokes Law and was merged with Count 2 for sentencing purposes. The court

imposed a prison term of three years on Count 4. The court ordered consecutive

service for Counts 1 and 4 and stated the following findings on the record:

      THE COURT: The record should reflect that I imposed a consecutive
      sentence on Counts 1 and 4. The court finds that consecutive sentences
      are 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 to the danger the offender
      poses to the public. The offender’s history of criminal conduct
      demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the
      public from future crimes by the offender, and there were two separate
      victims in this case.

              Regarding the remaining counts, the trial court imposed a prison

term of 36 months on Count 6, 12 months on Count 7, and six months on Count 9,

all concurrent to Count 1. The aggregate term was six to nine years. Finally, the

court imposed a ten-year license suspension upon Pacheco’s release from prison.

Pacheco now appeals and raises the following assignments of error for review.

                           First Assignment of Error

      The trial court erred when it imposed a sentence suspending the
      appellant’s driver’s license for ten-years, contrary to law.
                         Second Assignment of Error

      The trial court erred when it imposed a sentence assessing points to
      appellant’s driving record not announced at the oral sentencing hearing
      and contrary to law.

                          Third Assignment of Error

      The record does not support the consecutive sentence imposed upon
      appellant, and the findings required to impose consecutive sentences
      were incomplete and contrary to law.

                         Fourth Assignment of Error

      Appellant’s indefinite sentence imposed under the Reagan Tokes
      sentencing scheme violates appellant’s rights under the United States
      Constitution applied to the state of Ohio through the Fourteenth
      Amendment and the Ohio constitution as it denies appellant due
      process of law; violates the right to equal protection; violates the Sixth
      Amendment right to a jury trial; violates the separation of powers
      doctrine; does not provide fair warning of the dictates of the statute to
      ordinary citizens; and the statute conferred too much authority to the
      Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC).

                           Fifth Assignment of Error

      The trial court erred when it reflected the wrong code section for
      amended Count 1, felonious assault, in its plea and sentencing journal
      entries.

Law and Analysis

              The standard of review for felony sentencing requires an appellate

court to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence ordered

by the sentencing court. State v. Goins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-

263, ¶ 6. If the reviewing court clearly and convincingly finds that (1) the record

does not support the sentencing court’s findings or (2) the sentence is otherwise

contrary to law, then the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify
a sentence; or the appellate court may vacate the sentence and remand the matter

to the court for resentencing. Id. For ease of analysis, Pacheco’s assignments of

error will be addressed out of order and together, where appropriate.

License Suspension and Points

               Pacheco’s first and second assignments of error will be addressed

together for ease of analysis.

               Pacheco argues in his first and second assignments of error the trial

court erred when it imposed a ten-year driver’s license suspension on Count 4,

aggravated vehicular assault, under R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b); and the trial court failed

to inform Pacheco that six points were assessed on his license.

               As a preliminary matter, R.C. 2903.08(C)(2) and (3) govern

punishment     for     vehicular   assault   under   R.C.   2903.08(A)(2)   and   (3).

R.C. 2903.08(C) (2) provides in relevant part:

      In addition to any other sanctions imposed, the court shall impose
      upon the offender a class four suspension of the offender’s driver’s
      license, commercial driver’s license, temporary instruction permit,
      probationary license, or nonresident operating privilege from the range
      specified in division (A)(4) of section 4510.02 of the Revised Code or,
      if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a
      violation of this section, any traffic-related homicide, manslaughter, or
      assault offense, or any traffic-related murder, felonious assault, or
      attempted murder offense, a class three suspension of the offender’s
      driver’s license, commercial driver’s license, temporary instruction
      permit, probationary license, or nonresident operating privilege from
      the range specified in division (A)(3) of that section.

               The assessment of points is also prescribed by statute. R.C. 4510.036

requires as follows:
        (B) Every court of record or mayor’s court before which a person is
        charged with a violation for which points are chargeable by this section
        shall assess and transcribe to the abstract of conviction that is
        furnished by the bureau to the court the number of points chargeable
        by this section in the correct space assigned on the reporting form.
        ***

        (C) A court shall assess the following points for an offense based on the
        following formula:

        (1) Aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular homicide, vehicular
        manslaughter, aggravated vehicular assault, or vehicular assault when
        the offense involves the operation of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless
        trolley on a highway or street ______6 points.

                In the instant matter, Pacheco argues that the trial court imposed a

ten-year license suspension, which is unauthorized by law for vehicular assault

conviction and failed to inform him that a six-point license assessment was

statutorily required. There is no dispute that if the crimes are statutory, so are the

penalties, and the only sentence that a trial court may impose is that provided for by

statute. State v. McKenzie, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 20 CO 0024, 2021-Ohio-3170,

¶ 19.

                As it relates to the license suspension, Pacheco claims that absent a

prior conviction, he is only subject to a class four suspension.          A class four

suspension requires the court to impose a definite license suspension of one to five

years. A trial court may enhance a class four license suspension to a class three

suspension when the charge includes a prior conviction. R.C. 2903.08(C)(2).

                Pacheco pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to stop after an

accident in violation of R.C. 4549.02. R.C. 2903.08 requires the trial court to
enhance a violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(2) from an F4 to an F3, based on the same

course of conduct as the violations for a failure to stop after an accident; however, it

does not permit an enhancement of the class license suspension. R.C. 2903.08

requires a previous conviction and may not rely on the same course of conduct that

resulted in the violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(2) before the trial court is required to

enhance a class four license suspension to a class three license suspension.

               In the instant case, Pacheco had no applicable previous conviction.

The trial court was required to impose a definite term of suspension of between one

and five years. Accordingly, the ten-year driver’s license suspension is contrary to

law.

               Pacheco alleges that the trial court assessed six points on his license

under R.C. 4510.036 but failed to impose points during the sentencing hearing when

Pacheco was physically present. R.C. 4510.036. Pacheco relies on Crim.R. 43, which

provides in part:

       Except as provided in Rule 10 of these rules and division (A)(2) of this
       rule, the defendant must be physically present at every stage of the
       criminal proceeding and trial, including the impaneling of the jury, the
       return of the verdict, and the imposition of sentence, except as
       otherwise provided by these rules.

               A sentence is contrary to law when the sentence announced by the

trial court at the hearing differs from that in the sentencing entry. State v. Turner,

4th Dist. Athens No. 13CA26, 2015-Ohio-3712, ¶ 21. The trial court errs when its

judgment entry differs from the sentence it announced at the sentencing hearing in

the defendant’s presence. State v. Vaughn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103330, 2016-
Ohio-3320, ¶ 18. The record reveals that the trial court did not inform Pacheco that

he would be assessed six points against his license during the plea or sentencing

hearings.

               The sentence announced in open court violated Crim.R. 43 and was,

therefore, contrary to law. Pacheco’s first and second assignments of error are

sustained.

Consecutive Sentence

               Pacheco argues in his third assignment of error that the record does

not support the consecutive sentence imposed and the findings required to impose

consecutive sentences were incomplete and contrary to law.

               An appellate court reviews challenges to consecutive sentences de

novo. If a trial court failed to make the requisite findings, the appellate court must

find the order of consecutive sentences was contrary to law and either modify or

vacate the sentence and remand. State v. Efford, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 112077

and 112078, 2023-Ohio-3360, ¶ 21. If the trial court made the required findings, the

appellate court may only reverse or modify the sentence, including the number of

consecutive sentences, if the court “clearly and convincingly finds that the record

does not support the trial court’s findings.” State v. Trujillo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

112442, 2023-Ohio-4068.

               When the trial court imposes consecutive sentences, it must make

findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that a consecutive sentence is 1) necessary to

protect the public from future crime or punish the offender; 2) proportionality both
as to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and danger posed to the community;

and, 3) the need to protect the public from harm so great or unusual that a single

term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of his repeated conduct. State v.

Hollander, 144 Ohio App.3d 565, 571, 760 N.E.2d 929 (8th Dist.2001).

              Pacheco argues that the sentencing hearing transcript and journal

entry of the sentencing contained different findings. First, the appellate court must

review the record and determine if the trial court made findings under

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

              Additionally, the court must find any one 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 under 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)

              In the instant case, the trial court made the following findings on the

record:

      The record should reflect that I did impose a consecutive sentence on
      Count 1 and Count 4. The court finds that consecutive sentences are
      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 to the danger the offender
      poses to the public. The offender’s history of criminal conduct
      demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the
      public from future crime by the offender, and there were two separate
      victims in this case.

(Tr. 34.)

               The trial court is required to make the statutory findings on the record

and incorporate them in its journal entry; however, the trial court is not required to

recite a word-for-word recitation of the language of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v.

Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29. The relevant

inquiry is whether the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in the

correct analysis and determine that the record contains evidence supporting the

court’s findings. Id.

               Here, the trial court clearly found that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) was

applicable. The record reflects that the court reviewed the PSI and considered

Pacheco’s criminal history, including fleeing from police, driving under suspension,

failing to maintain physical control, and prior drug cases, and that the serious

injuries sustained by two victims and loss of life caused by Pacheco’s criminal

conduct necessitated consecutive sentences to protect the public. The sentencing

entry however, cites the wrong subsection of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). It is well settled

that the court may correct clerical mistakes through a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect

what actually occurred in open court. See State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-

Ohio-1111, 967 N.E.2d 718, ¶ 15. Bonnell at ¶ 30.
               Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the trial court considered

the number of sentences it imposed consecutively as well as the resulting aggregate

sentence when the trial court imposed consecutive sentences on Counts 1 and 4 and

concurrent sentences on the remaining counts, for an aggregate sentence of six to

nine years. The trial court is ordered to correct nunc pro tunc, the sentencing entry

to reflect the findings it made on the record.          Accordingly, Pacheco’s third

assignment of error is overruled in part and sustained in part.

Reagan Tokes

               In his fourth assignment of error, Pacheco alleges his appellant’s

indefinite sentence imposed under the Reagan Tokes sentencing scheme violates

his rights under the United States Constitution applied to the state of Ohio through

the Fourteenth Amendment and the Ohio Constitution since it denies appellant due

process of law; violates the right to equal protection; violates the Sixth Amendment

right to a jury trial; violates the separation-of-powers doctrine; does not provide fair

warning of the dictates of the statute to ordinary citizens; and the statute conferred

too much authority to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(“ODRC”).

               The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed these issues in State v.

Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, and found they lack merit. See Efford,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 112077 and 112078, 2023-Ohio-3360, at ¶ 15.

               Pacheco’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Plea and Sentencing Entries

              In his fifth assignment of error, Pacheco argues that the trial court

erred when it reflected a plea to Count 1, felonious assault by means of a weapon or

deadly ordnance, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), instead of felonious assault in

violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), as amended, in its plea and sentencing journal

entries.

              The state concedes that the plea and sentencing entries reflect the

incorrect section of the Revised Code, for which Pacheco pleaded guilty. A nunc pro

tunc entry should reflect what the court decided properly. State v. Dejesus, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga Nos. 112043 and 112193, 2023-Ohio-2485, ¶ 34. A careful review of the

record reflects that the state amended Count 1 by removing the language “by means

of a weapon or dangerous ordnance.”

              Accordingly, Pacheco pled guilty to felonious assault in violation of

R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). Pacheco’s fifth assignment of error is sustained. This matter is

remanded to enter a nunc pro tunc order to correct the plea and sentencing entries

consistent with this opinion.

              Judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this matter is

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      It is ordered that appellant and appellee share the 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

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR