State v. BackState v. Back
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jamie Back, appeals from his prison sentence received in the Clark County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to one count of breaking and entering and one count of failing to comply. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 2} On May 27, 2013, Jamie Back pled guilty to one count of breaking and entering in violation of
{¶ 3} Appellant now appeals from the trial court‘s sentencing decision, raising one assignment of error. The State conceded error on appeal.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 4} Back‘s sole assignment of error is as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MR. BACK TO CONSECUTIVE MAXIMUM SENTENCES WITHOUT THE ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) .
{¶ 5} Under this assignment of error, Back contends that the trial court erred in failing to make the required statutory findings in
Standard of Review
{¶ 6}
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. The aрpellate court‘s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorizеd 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) ofsection 2929.14 , or division (I) ofsection 2929.20 of the Revised Code , whichever, if any, is relevant;(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) .
The Trial Court Was Not Required tо Make the Consecutive Sentence Findings in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender wаs awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to
section 2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 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 сourses 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 оffenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
(c) The offender‘s histоry 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) -(c).
{¶ 8} In most сases, “[t]he trial court is not required to give reasons explaining these findings, nor is the court required to recite any ‘magic’ or ‘talismanic’ words when imposing consecutive sentences. * * * Nevertheless, the record must reflect that the court made the
{¶ 9} Appellee, the State of Ohio, conceded error on grounds that the record does not show that the trial court made the consecutive sentence findings under
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} In State v. Foster, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98869, 2013-Ohio-2199, the Eighth District further explained that:
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides trial courts with discretion to impose consecutivesentences under certain circumstancеs, and requires trial courts to make specific findings before exercising that discretion. In contrast, under R.C. 2921.331(D) , the trial court lacked discretion; rather, the trial court was required to impose the consecutive sentences. Accordingly, the trial court did not need to make findings underR.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences on [the defendant]. Id. at ¶ 6.
{¶ 12} In this case, Back pled guilty to failure to comрly, a violation of
Back‘s Sentence Is Not Otherwise Contrary to Law
{¶ 13} Back also implies that his sentence is contrary to law because the sentencing transcript does not reference the purposes and principles of sentencing in
{¶ 14} “[A] sentence is not contrary to law when the trial court imposes a sentence within the statutory range, after expressly stating that it had сonsidered the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in
{¶ 15} Herе, Back‘s 18-month prison sentence for failure to comply, as well as his one-year prison sentence for breaking and entering, fall within the prescribed statutory rаnge for fourth and fifth-degree felonies. See
The Court considered the record, oral statements of counsel, the defendant‘s statement, the defendant‘s prior criminal record, the principles and purposes of sentencing under
Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.11 , and has balanсed the seriousness and recidivism factors underOhio Revised Code Section 2929.12 . Judgment Entry of Conviction/Warrant for Removal (July 1, 2013), Clark County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2013-CR-126, Docket No. 21, p. 1.
Therefore, thе record sufficiently indicates that the trial court considered
{¶ 16} Because the trial court was not required to make the consecutive sentence findings under
Conclusion
{¶ 17} Having overruled Back‘s sole assignment of error, and having concluded that the State wrongly conceded error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HALL, J., concurs.
DONOVAN, J., concurs in judgment only.
Copies mailed to:
Lisa M. Fannin
Andrew M. Anastasi
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter