Court Opinion

ID: 9950128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 14:12:31.233758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:44.897624
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. McRae, 2024-Ohio-922.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                               :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                  :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                            :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                        :
                                            :
CHARLES MCRAE                               :       Case No. 2023-CA-0039
                                            :
        Defendant-Appellant                 :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                    Pleas, Case No. 2022CR0800

JUDGMENT:                                           Vacated and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   March 12, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                              For Defendant-Appellant

JODY SCHUMACHER                                     RANDALL E. FRY
38 South Park Street                                90 Darby Drive
Mansfield, OH 44907                                 Lexington, OH 44904
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-0039                                                   2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Charles McRae appeals the June 30, 2023 judgment

of conviction and sentence of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-

Appellee is the state of Ohio. We remand the matter for resentencing.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} On November 19, 2022, McRae forced his way into his sister's home and

savagely assaulted her. The assault left McRae's sister with a broken arm and fractures

which required surgery, plates and screws to repair. The assault was captured on the

home's Ring cameras.

       {¶ 3} On January 5, 2023, the Richland County Grand Jury returned an

indictment charging McRae with one count of aggravated burglary, a felony of the first

degree, two counts of kidnapping, felonies of the first degree, and felonious assault, a

felony of the second degree. Each of these counts carried a repeat violent offender

specification. McRae was additionally charged with domestic violence, a misdemeanor of

the first degree, criminal damaging or endangering, a misdemeanor of the first degree,

and criminal mischief, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

       {¶ 4} On March 19, 2023, McRae entered pleas of guilty to each count of the

indictment. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and set the matter over for

sentencing.

       {¶ 5} McRae appeared for sentencing on June 22, 2023. After the trial court

merged several counts, the state elected to proceed to sentencing on counts 1, 2, and 4,

aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and felonious assault, respectively. McRae was

sentenced to 10-15 years for aggravated burglary, 3 years for kidnapping, and 5 years
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-0039                                                      3

for felonious assault. The trial court additionally imposed a 2-year term for the repeat

violent offender specification for an aggregate total of 20 to 25 years incarceration.

           {¶ 6} McRae filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration.1 He raises two assignments of error as follow:

                                                     I

           {¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DESIGNATING THE APPELLANT A

REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDER."

                                                     II

           {¶ 8} "THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHTS TO EFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 OF THE

OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION."

           {¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, McRae argues the trial court's sentence for

the repeat violent offender (“RVO”) specification was contrary to law. Specifically, McRae

contends the only evidence presented at the sentencing hearing to support the RVO

designation was that fact that he has a 1993 conviction for felonious assault and that no

details of that conviction are contained in the record. He therefore argues the trial court

could not have made the necessary analysis to support its RVO designation. While we

disagree with McRae's argument, we nonetheless remand the matter for resentencing.

                                               Applicable Law

           {¶ 10} R.C. 2929.01 defines a repeat violent offender in relevant part as:

1
    The state did not file a response brief.
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-0039                                                    4

             (CC) "Repeat violent offender" means a person about whom both of

             the following apply:

             (1) The person is being sentenced for committing or for complicity in

             committing any of the following:

             (a) Aggravated murder, murder, any felony of the first or second

             degree that is an offense of violence, or an attempt to commit any of

             these offenses if the attempt is a felony of the first or second degree;

             ***

              (2) The person previously was convicted of or pleaded guilty to an

             offense described in division (CC)(1)(a) or (b) of this section.

      {¶ 11} The trial court imposed a discretionary sentence for the RVO specification

pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a). That section states:

             (2)(a) If division (B)(2)(b) of this section does not apply, the court may

             impose on an offender, in addition to the longest prison term

             authorized or required for the offense or, for offenses for which

             division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of this section applies, in addition to the

             longest minimum prison term authorized or required for the offense,

             an additional definite prison term of one, two, three, four, five, six,

             seven, eight, nine, or ten years if all of the following criteria are met:
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-0039                                                     5

            (i) The offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a specification of

            the type described in section 2941.149 of the Revised Code that the

            offender is a repeat violent offender.

            (ii) The offense of which the offender currently is convicted or to

            which the offender currently pleads guilty is aggravated murder and

            the court does not impose a sentence of death or life imprisonment

            without parole, murder, terrorism and the court does not impose a

            sentence of life imprisonment without parole, any felony of the first

            degree that is an offense of violence and the court does not impose

            a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, or any felony of the

            second degree that is an offense of violence and the trier of fact finds

            that the offense involved an attempt to cause or a threat to cause

            serious physical harm to a person or resulted in serious physical

            harm to a person.

            (iii) The court imposes the longest prison term for the offense or the

            longest minimum prison term for the offense, whichever is applicable,

            that is not life imprisonment without parole.

            (iv) The court finds that the prison terms imposed pursuant to division

            (B)(2)(a)(iii) of this section and, if applicable, division (B)(1) or (3) of

            this section are inadequate to punish the offender and protect the

            public from future crime, because the applicable factors under

            section 2929.12 of the Revised Code indicating a greater likelihood
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-0039                                                      6

             of recidivism outweigh the applicable factors under that section

             indicating a lesser likelihood of recidivism.

             (v) The court finds that the prison terms imposed pursuant to division

             (B)(2)(a)(iii) of this section and, if applicable, division (B)(1) or (3) of

             this section are demeaning to the seriousness of the offense,

             because one or more of the factors under section 2929.12 of the

             Revised Code indicating that the offender's conduct is more serious

             than conduct normally constituting the offense are present, and they

             outweigh the applicable factors under that section indicating that the

             offender's conduct is less serious than conduct normally constituting

             the offense.

      {¶ 12} An "offense of violence" is defined in R.C. 2901.01(9)(a) and includes

felonious assault as proscribed by R.C. 2903.11.

                                    McRae's Argument

      {¶ 13} McRae never disputed he has a 1993 conviction for felonious assault. He

argues here on appeal, however, that the record contains no details regarding that

conviction, nor does it indicate the sentence he received. He asserts, therefore, that the

"trial court could not possibly have made an analysis that the record contains evidence to

support the finding of an RVO designation." Appellant's brief at 8. McRae does not

indicate what analysis the trial court was supposed to make. The only requirements

placed upon a trial court before imposing sentence for a discretionary RVO are contained
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-0039                                                   7

in R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a) as set forth above. In determining a trial court's compliance with

the same, this court has recently quoted the Eighth District Court of Appeals:

              Similar to the conclusion that “talismanic” words are not required

              when imposing consecutive sentences under 2929.14(C)(4), there

              are no magic words that must be recited by the trial court when

              making the RVO findings under 2929.14(B)(2)(a). As long as the

              reviewing court can discern from the record that the trial court

              engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record

              contains evidence to support the findings, the sentence on the RVO

              specification should be upheld.

       {¶ 14} State v. Shaffer, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2021-0023, 2022-Ohio-2006

¶ 24, citing State v. Watts, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104269, 2017-Ohio-532 ¶ 11.

       {¶ 15} However, all of the conditions listed in R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a) must be

satisfied before the trial court may impose sentence on an RVO specification. Here, the

trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iii) when it imposed less than the

longest minimum prison term for aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed a minimum

prison term of 10 years. The longest minimum prison term for a first-degree felony is 11

years. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(a). We therefore vacate McRae's sentence and remand the

matter for resentencing.

                                            II
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-0039                                                8

       {¶ 16} In his second assignment of error, McRae argues his trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the RVO finding. Given our resolution of

McRae's first assignment of error, McRae's second assignment of error is moot.

       {¶ 17} The judgment of sentence of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas

is vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing.

By King, J.,

Hoffman, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.