Court Opinion

ID: 9882878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:21:21.499508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:05.626462
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hoyle, 2023-Ohio-3217.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NO. 2022-L-103

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                   Court of Common Pleas

DAROLD L. HOYLE, II,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2021 CR 001480
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                    Decided: September 11, 2023
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, Kristi L. Winner and Adam M. Downing,
Assistant Prosecutors, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box
490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Gregory T. Stralka, 6509 Brecksville Road, P.O. Box 31776, Cleveland, OH 44131 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant, Darold L. Hoyle, II, appeals from his sentences for

Attempted Murder and Improperly Discharging a Firearm at or into a Habitation in the

Lake County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment

of the lower court.

        {¶2}     On December 15, 2021, Hoyle was indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury

for two counts of Attempted Murder, felonies of the first degree, in violation of R.C.

2923.02 and R.C. 2903.02; four counts of Felonious Assault, felonies of the second
degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (2); Improperly Discharging a Firearm at or

into a Habitation, a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1); and

Breaking and Entering, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(B). All

counts had firearm specifications under R.C. 2941.145 and Breaking and Entering also

had a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.141.

          {¶3}   During the course of the proceedings, the court found Hoyle competent to

stand trial and denied a motion to suppress a statement made by Hoyle following his

arrest.

          {¶4}   On August 23, 2022, a plea hearing was held and a Written Plea of Guilty

and Judgment Entry was filed. Hoyle entered a plea of guilty to two Counts of Attempted

Murder with accompanying firearm specifications and Improperly Discharging a Firearm

at or into a Habitation. The remaining charges were dismissed. The State indicated it

would have proven Hoyle got in an argument with a male that Hoyle discovered at the

residence of the woman Hoyle had been dating. Hoyle subsequently returned to the

residence and fired shots inside, striking both victims.

          {¶5}   A sentencing hearing was held on October 12, 2022. Defense counsel

argued that this incident was out of character for Hoyle and emphasized letters of support

submitted by friends and family. Counsel observed that Hoyle had only misdemeanor

convictions and the last conviction was ten years ago. Counsel emphasized Hoyle’s

remorse for the offenses and indicated that he was struggling with homelessness, job

loss, and the loss of a family member, as well as mental health concerns and substance

abuse. Counsel argued that Hoyle acted under “strong provocation as he came upon his

girlfriend with another man.” Hoyle apologized to the victims and their families, as well

                                             2

Case No. 2022-L-103
as the residents of the condo complex where the shooting occurred.                  He took

responsibility for his actions but indicated that, when the incident occurred, he was off his

mental health medication and was using drugs and alcohol.

       {¶6}   The State emphasized that Hoyle had fired 25 rounds into the condo where

the shooting occurred and that the victims suffered permanent injury. The female victim

lost a portion of her toe and was struck in the legs and foot three times, and the male

victim lost a toe, was struck in the legs and foot eight times, had four surgeries, and will

have additional surgeries to remove bullet fragments from his body. It noted that the

victims indicated they suffered serious psychological injury. It emphasized that the act

was planned, as Hoyle left the residence, drove to a separate county, and returned with

his weapon. The State requested a sentence of 32 years in prison.

       {¶7}   The court stated that it had considered the purposes of sentencing under

R.C. 2929.11 and the relevant seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. It

found that the victims suffered serious physical, psychological, and economic harm and

that Hoyle’s relationship with the victim facilitated the harm. It emphasized that the

incident with his girlfriend did not justify shooting 25 rounds into a residential bedroom. It

noted Hoyle had juvenile offenses but did not have an extensive criminal history as an

adult and found that Hoyle regretted his actions. The court ordered Hoyle to serve

consecutive terms of 11 years for count one of Attempted Murder, 11 to 16.5 years for

count two of Attempted Murder, 4 years for Improperly Discharging a Firearm at or into a

Habitation, and 3 years for each firearm specification, for a total term of 32 years to 37.5

years in prison. This sentence was memorialized in an October 18, 2022 Judgment Entry.

       {¶8}   Hoyle timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:

                                              3

Case No. 2022-L-103
       {¶9}   “The appellant’s sentence in this matter is contrary to the guidelines of

Ohio’s sentencing statutes.”

       {¶10} Hoyle raises two separate arguments relating to his sentence. First, he

contends that the court’s maximum 11 year sentences for the Attempted Murder charges

were an abuse of discretion. He contends that the court failed to properly consider the

seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12(C) and (E) that are favorable to

Hoyle, including Hoyle’s expression of remorse, his lack of a “prior adult record,” and that

the circumstances of the crime were unlikely to occur again.

       {¶11} “The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence] shall review the record,

including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing

court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “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 resentencing * * * if it clearly and

convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings

under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 [or] * * * [t]hat the sentence is otherwise

contrary to law.” Id. “The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the

sentencing court abused its discretion.” Id.

       {¶12} “A sentence is contrary to law when it is ‘in violation of statute or legal

regulations,’” such as where it falls outside of the statutory range for the offense or where

the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C.

2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Meeks, 11th Dist. Ashtabula

No. 2022-A-0060, 2023-Ohio-988, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242,

2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 34; State v. Scott, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2022-T-

                                               4

Case No. 2022-L-103
0084, 2023-Ohio-1091, ¶ 24. The Ohio Supreme Court has further held that a sentence

is contrary to law if “it is imposed ‘based on factors or considerations that are extraneous

to those [seriousness and recidivism factors] that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12.’” Meeks at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878,

198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22.

       {¶13} “[A]n appellate court’s determination that the record does not support a

sentence does not equate to a determination that the sentence is ‘otherwise contrary to

law’ as that term is used in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).” Jones at ¶ 32. We “cannot review

alleged error under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 to evaluate whether the sentencing

court’s findings for those sentences are unsupported by the record.” State v. Reed, 11th

Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0082, 2023-Ohio-1324, ¶ 13.

       {¶14} There is no dispute that the sentences given were within the statutory

ranges for the offenses. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(a) (indefinite prison term for first degree

felony is three to eleven years); R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a) (indefinite prison term for second

degree felony is two to eight years).        Further, Hoyle does not argue that the court

considered impermissible facts.       Instead, he contends that there was “an abuse of

discretion” in “the failure of the trial court to consider” factors relating to his remorse, lack

of a prior record, and the improbability of committing a similar offense in the future. We

disagree.

       {¶15} As noted above, we evaluate sentences not for an abuse of discretion but

determine whether they are clearly and convincingly contrary to law. As to consideration

of the factors, we note that “even though a trial court is required to consider the R.C.

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record

                                               5

Case No. 2022-L-103
to comport with its statutory obligations.” (Citations omitted.) Scott at ¶ 25. Although not

required to do so, the trial court made findings demonstrating it considered each of the

factors disputed by Hoyle. The court specifically recognized that Hoyle regretted his

actions. The court reviewed and stated Hoyle’s criminal record and correctly recognized

that he “does not have an extensive criminal history as an adult.” Although Hoyle argues

he had “no prior adult record,” this is inaccurate as he had committed several

misdemeanor offenses. Finally, the court considered and rejected Hoyle’s argument that

this offense was unlikely to be committed again because it involved a girlfriend,

recognizing the danger posed to society when an individual shoots 25 rounds into an

occupied condominium building due to his romantic interest being with another man.

       {¶16} It appears Hoyle’s true concern is with the court’s weighing of the factors,

an issue we cannot consider on appeal. This court is not permitted to “weigh the evidence

in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence

that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Jones at ¶ 42; State v.

Freshwater, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2022-L-071, 2023-Ohio-1248, ¶ 10 (“[g]iven the holding

in Jones, we are precluded from reviewing whether [the defendant’s] sentence is

supported by the record under R.C. 2929.12”). Since the court’s sentence was not

contrary to law and we are precluded from reviewing whether the sentence is supported

by the record under R.C. 2929.12, we find no error.

       {¶17} Hoyle also argues that the court erred in ordering consecutive sentences,

contending that the findings made by the trial court were not supported by the record.

       {¶18} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), separate prison terms for multiple offenses

may be ordered to be served consecutively if the court finds it is “necessary to protect the

                                             6

Case No. 2022-L-103
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 finds any of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) factors are

present. The pertinent R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) factor here is (b): “[a]t 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 * * * adequately

reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.”

       {¶19} To reverse the consecutive sentencing findings, this court must “‘clearly and

convincingly find that the record does not support the court’s findings.’”            (Citation

omitted.) State v. Guth, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2015-P-0083, 2016-Ohio-8221, ¶ 23; R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). This standard has been characterized as “extremely deferential.” State

v. Forsell, 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2019-P-0116, et al., 2020-Ohio-5381, ¶ 15. There

must be an “evidentiary basis” that is “adequate to fully support the trial court’s

consecutive-sentence findings.” State v. Gwynne, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4607,

___ N.E.3d __, ¶ 29. “This requires the appellate court to focus on both the quantity and

quality of the evidence in the record that either supports or contradicts the consecutive-

sentence findings. An appellate court may not, for example, presume that because the

record contains some evidence relevant to and not inconsistent with the consecutive-

sentence findings, that this evidence is enough to fully support the findings.” Id. In

evaluating consecutive sentences, the appellate court is “authorized to substitute its

judgment for the trial court’s judgment if [it] has a firm conviction or belief, after reviewing

the entire record, that the evidence does not support the specific findings made by the

                                               7

Case No. 2022-L-103
trial court to impose consecutive sentences.” Id.

       {¶20} The lower court found, both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing

entry, that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and punish Hoyle,

are not disproportionate to his conduct and the danger he poses to the public, and the

harm is so great or unusual that a single term would not adequately reflect the

seriousness of Hoyle’s conduct.       The court made the required findings under R.C.

2929.14(C)(4) and also found that (C)(4)(b) applied. This satisfies the requirement to

make the necessary findings and the remaining issue is whether these findings were

supported by the record.

       {¶21} Hoyle does not specifically assert that the court erred in its finding that

(C)(4)(b) was satisfied, although he observes that the injuries to the victims were not “life-

threatening.” The (C)(4)(b) finding set forth that the harm caused was so “great or

unusual” that a single prison term would not reflect the seriousness of the conduct.

However, there is no question that significant harm occurred where the victims each

suffered several bullet wounds to their legs and feet, each lost a toe or portion of a toe,

the male victim had several surgeries to remove bullet fragments, and the female victim

expressed psychological and economic harm. There is no statutory requirement that they

must experience life-threatening injuries to have undergone great harm.

       {¶22} Hoyle takes issue with the trial court’s findings that consecutive sentences

are “necessary to protect the public from future crime” and are “not disproportionate to

the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the

public.”   He contends that the record demonstrates “the underlying offenses were

committed against the Appellant’s past girlfriend and her current boyfriend. The general

                                              8

Case No. 2022-L-103
public was not involved. There is simply no need to protect the public from an isolated

event specifically directed toward particular individuals.”

       {¶23} Hoyle’s narrow view diminishes the crimes committed and also fails to fully

take into account the danger he poses to the public. That Hoyle would react to a conflict

with a romantic interest regarding her relationship with another man by shooting both

individuals presents a serious concern to society. Of note, the police narrative contained

in the PSI indicates that Hoyle and the female victim had only been seeing each other for

approximately three weeks prior to this incident, which serves to highlight the

unpredictable and dangerous nature of his behavior. This violent and unjustified action

gives rise to legitimate concerns as to Hoyle’s potential reactions to other similar

situations with members of the community, including future girlfriends. Further, he fired

a barrage of 25 rounds into a condo, which shared walls with other individuals entirely

unrelated to the incident, presenting a serious risk to those in the vicinity and further

highlighting the danger presented.

       {¶24} Although Hoyle emphasizes that his criminal conduct took place on one

night with only two victims, the police narrative indicates that, during the shooting, Hoyle

also pointed his firearm at a neighbor who witnessed Hoyle’s actions. Nonetheless, a

finding that “only” these victims were involved does not preclude a determination that

Hoyle poses a danger to the public. The nature of the crime and the surrounding factual

circumstances provided the court with the justification to find that the offender poses a

risk to the public as a whole, particularly here where he had a conflict with the victims,

left, and later returned with a gun, evidencing that he did not cool down even with the

passage of time.

                                              9

Case No. 2022-L-103
       {¶25} While Hoyle emphasizes his limited adult criminal record, which consists of

misdemeanors, this fact does not change the danger his actions posed to the public. R.C.

2929.14(C)(4) mentions a defendant’s criminal record only in relation to a finding under

(C)(4)(c), which finding was not made here. As such, it is not necessary to resolve

whether Hoyle’s history of criminal conduct supports a finding that consecutive sentences

are necessary. The danger he poses to the public, regardless of his criminal background,

is evident from his conduct.

       {¶26} Hoyle cites State v. Hawley, 2020-Ohio-1270, 153 N.E.3d 714 (8th Dist.), in

support of his contention that consecutive sentences are not warranted where there was

an individual victim and the offender had a limited criminal record.            Hawley is

distinguishable from the present matter. In Hawley, the court found that there was a lack

of evidence to support a finding of great or unusual harm or a danger posed to the public

where Hawley took nude videos of his stepdaughter but did not share the videos or touch

her and Hawley had only a criminal history of misdemeanor offenses. Id. at ¶ 16-18. The

crime in Hawley had one victim rather than multiple victims and did not take place in

public. The crime here involved firing 25 rounds into a building occupied with not only the

victims but others as well. Further, Hawley considered the length of the sentence (56

years) as “demean[ing] the seriousness of other more violent crimes” as part of its

consecutive sentence analysis. Id. at ¶ 23-25. The prison term here is significantly

shorter and also relates to a violent crime, further distinguishing this matter from Hawley.

       {¶27} The sole assignment of error is without merit.

                                            10

Case No. 2022-L-103
      {¶28} For the foregoing reasons, Hoyle’s sentences for Attempted Murder and

Improperly Discharging a Firearm at or into a Habitation in the Lake County Court of

Common Pleas are affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                        11

Case No. 2022-L-103