Court Opinion

ID: 9894590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 14:07:33.70392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:02.505122
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-3974.]

                                   COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                  EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                  :

                 Plaintiff- Appellee,           :
                                                           No. 112271
                         v.                     :

RONALD SMITH, JR.,                              :

                 Defendant-Appellant.           :

                                    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 2, 2023

              Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
              Case Nos. CR-21-663423-A, CR-22-670339-A, CR-22-671518-A, and
                                      CR-22-671958-A

                                            Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Jamielle Lamson-Buscho, Assistant
                 Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

                 Joseph V. Pagano, for appellant.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:

                  Ronald Smith, Jr. appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences

imposed after he entered pleas of guilty in four felony cases. Because the trial court

properly made the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences and we do
not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentences

imposed, we affirm Smith’s sentences.

               PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTS

              Smith entered into a plea agreement with the state of Ohio in four

felony cases. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-663423, Smith pleaded guilty to burglary

in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B), a felony of the fourth degree, and the trial court

imposed a ten-month prison sentence, ordering the sentence to be served

concurrently to the sentences imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-22-670339,

CR-22-671518, and CR-671958 and to a felony sentence imposed in Richland C.P.

No. 22-277.

              In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-670339, Smith pleaded guilty to

breaking and entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A), a felony of the fifth degree.

The trial court imposed a ten-month prison sentence and ordered the sentence to be

served concurrently with the sentences imposed in in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos.

CR-22-663423, CR-22-671518, and CR-22-671958 and to Richland C.P. No. 22-277.

              In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-671518, Smith pleaded guilty to breaking

and entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A), a felony of the fifth degree. The trial

court imposed a ten-month prison sentence. It ordered the sentence to be served

concurrently with the sentences imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-22-663423,

CR-22-670339, and CR-22-670339 and to Richland C.P. No. 22-277. The trial court

ordered that this sentence be served consecutively to the prison sentence in

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-671958.
              In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-671958, Smith pleaded guilty to

attempted robbery in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2911.02(A)(2). The trial court

imposed a sentence of 24 months in prison and ordered the sentence to be served

concurrently to the sentences imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-22-663423 and

CR-22-670339 and to Richland C.P. No. 22-277. It then ordered the sentence to be

served consecutively to the sentence imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-671518,

finding that “it is necessary to protect the public and punish the offender, it is not

disproportionate to the conduct [and] the Defendant’s criminal history shows that

consecutive sentences are needed to protect the public.”

              Smith pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, two counts of breaking

and entering, and one count of attempted robbery in four separate cases, and the

trial court imposed an aggregate 34-month prison term. Upon his convictions, the

trial court found Smith to be in violation of community-control sanctions in

Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. 21-CR-660704, 21-CR- 659583, and 21-CR-659728, imposed

six-month prison sentences in each case, and ordered these sentences to be served

consecutively to the sentences imposed in Smith’s present cases. Smith did not

appeal the six-month sentences imposed for violating community-control sanctions.

              At the time of the sentencing hearing, Smith was 48 years old. He was

on community-control sanctions in three pending cases in Cuyahoga County and

serving a prison term that was imposed in a case originating in Richland County.

             The trial court stated that it reviewed each case file, the presentence-

investigation report, and considered the relevant sentencing statutes. Within the
presentence-investigation report, the trial court was made aware of the facts

surrounding Smith’s convictions. In Case No. 663423, to which Smith pleaded

guilty to burglary, Smith was caught inside the victim’s home, having entered a

home through a side window. In Case No. 671958, in which he pleaded guilty to

attempted robbery, Smith attacked two Dollar General store employees with a

crutch after they approached him for shoplifting. In Case Nos. 670339 and 671518,

Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of breaking and entering the same store on East

55th Street in Cleveland, Ohio. Smith was caught on a store’s surveillance video

stealing multiple boxes of cigarettes, alcohol, and money. Less than a month after

his first crime, Smith returned and again took cigarettes, alcohol, and cash.

             In addressing the trial court, the state noted Smith had at least 25 prior

cases in Cuyahoga County and was serving a prison term in his case from Richland

County. The state also informed the trial court that the victim of the breaking and

entering offenses asked that Smith receive a prison sentence. Smith’s attorney

informed the trial court that Smith was taking steps toward rehabilitation and was

actively engaged in drug treatment. Smith addressed the trial court, apologized for

his crimes, and told the trial court that his crimes were due to his drug habit.

               In sentencing Smith, the trial court stated Smith “had a swath of

destruction here. I’ve got to give you some time. Hopefully you’re not going to be

using drugs while you’re in prison, that you have an opportunity to get yourself

clean, actually get some treatment there, be away from them sufficiently long.” After
announcing the prison terms imposed in each case, the trial court made consecutive-

sentence findings, stating that

      [t]he Court finds that it is necessary to protect the public and punish
      the offender, and it is not disproportionate to the conduct, and the
      defendant’s criminal history shows that consecutive sentences are
      needed to protect the public.

                              LAW AND ARGUMENT

                      Standard of Review and Relevant Law

              R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides that when imposing consecutive

sentences, the trial court must find that consecutive sentences are necessary to

protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender, that the sentences

are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct, and 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 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.

              An offender may challenge consecutive sentences by arguing the

sentencing court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or that

the record does not support the findings made by the trial court. State v. Clay, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108500, 2020-Ohio-1499; State v. Simmons, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 107144, 2019-Ohio-459. “Where the trial court made the requisite

consecutive sentencing findings, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires this court to affirm an

order of consecutive service unless we ‘clearly and convincingly’ find that the record

does not support the court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences.” Id. at

¶ 11.

                                Assignment of Error

               Smith raises one assignment of error, which reads:

        Appellant’s sentence is clearly and convincingly not supported by the
        record and is contrary to law.

               Smith makes three arguments in support of his assignment of error.

He first argues that the trial court was required to make consecutive-sentence

findings to order the sentence imposed for his community-control violations to be

served consecutively to his new cases. Smith next argues that the trial court did not

make a finding that a consecutive sentence was not disproportionate to the danger

he posed to the public, noting that the trial court stated that it found the sentence

was not disproportionate to the “conduct.” Finally, Smith argues that the record

does not support the imposition of a consecutive sentence because the trial court did

not consider the aggregate prison term when imposing the sentence and that there

was an insufficient evidentiary basis to support consecutive sentences.

               The state argues the trial court made the requisite findings to impose

consecutive sentences and was not required to make two sets of findings in this case.
It further argues that the trial court was not required to find that a consecutive

sentence would not be disproportionate to the danger the offender poses to society

as alleged by Smith; instead, the state argues that the trial court need only find that

consecutive sentences were “necessary to protect the public from future crime or to

punish the offender” and that the trial court made the second of these findings.

Finally, the state argues that Smith’s conduct in these cases and his decades long

criminal history support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.

 Having made consecutive-sentence findings, the trial court was not required to
 make separate findings regarding violations of community-control sanctions

               The trial court imposed consecutive sentences, sentencing Smith to

consecutive terms of incarceration for some of the counts in his new felony cases as

well as ordering sentences imposed for community-control violations to be served

consecutively. Smith argues the trial court was required to make separate findings

to order the sentences imposed for his community-control violations to be served

consecutively to his new sentences, citing State v. Jones, Slip Opinion

No. 2022-Ohio-4485. In Jones, the Ohio Supreme Court held noted that when a

trial court revokes community-control sanctions and imposes prison sentences, the

trial court is required to make consecutive-sentence findings. Id. at ¶ 18, fn. 3.

               We do not read Jones as mandating that a trial court make separate

sets of consecutive-sentence findings. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides a trial court

authority to order sentences be served consecutively “if multiple prison terms are

imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offense” so long as the trial court
makes certain findings. In this case, the trial court imposed prison sentences in each

of the seven cases in which Smith was being sentenced. In order to impose any or

all of the sentences consecutively, the trial court was required to make findings, not

multiple sets of findings dependent on the source of the sentence imposed. See

Jones at ¶ 12 (“[A] trial court may make the necessary findings and ‘order a prison

sentence to be served consecutively to a prison sentence previously imposed on the

same offender by another Ohio court.’”), quoting State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174,

2008-Ohio-1983, 887 N.E.2d 328, ¶ 1; State v. Knox, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

107414, 2019-Ohio-3567, ¶ 19, fn. 2 (Trial court has authority to impose sentences

consecutively to sentences imposed in other jurisdictions.).

 The trial court made the requisite findings to impose consecutive sentences and
            the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences

              Smith argues the trial court did not make the requisite consecutive-

sentence findings. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did make the

findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences. R.C. 2929.14(C) requires a

finding that “consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future

crime or to punish the offender” The trial court did so by stating consecutive

sentences were “necessary to protect the public and punish the offender.” The

statute further requires the trial court find that “the sentences are not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct.” Id. The trial court found that

consecutive sentences were “not disproportionate to the conduct.” Finally, the

statute requires a further finding, one of which being that “the offender’s history of
criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect

the public from future crime by the offender.” Id. Here, the trial court found Smith’s

“criminal history shows that consecutive sentences are needed to protect the public.”

               The trial court did not recite the statute verbatim when making its

findings; “[h]owever, a word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute is not

required, and as 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.” State v. Bonnell, 140

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

               Smith also argues that the record does not support the findings made

by the trial court, citing the mitigation evidence he offered at the sentencing hearing.

Despite the mitigation offered, the trial court was sentencing Smith in four felony

cases with three separate victims, as well as in three cases in which Smith violated

community-control sanctions. Further, Smith had a decades-long history of felony

offenses and was serving a prison term in a case from another county. On this

record, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the

trial court’s findings.

               The sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                    CONCLUSION

               When sentencing Smith to four new felony cases and three

community-control violation cases, the trial court made consecutive-sentencing

findings as required by R.C. 2929.14(C). The record indicated that Smith committed
multiple crimes against multiple victims and has a decades-long history of criminal

behavior. We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support

the findings made by the trial court and affirm the sentences imposed.

              Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.           The defendant’s

conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

____________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR