State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian L. Balderson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17AP-690 (C.P.C. No. 17CR-1925)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
September 13, 2018
[Cite as State v. Balderson, 2018-Ohio-3683.]
(ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Rendered on September 13, 2018
On brief: Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kimberly M. Bond, for appellee.
On brief: Brian L. Balderson, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Brian L. Balderson, appeals from the August 28, 2017 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposing consecutive sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On April 6, 2017, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted Balderson on two counts of forgery, in violation of
{¶ 3} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a 7-month prison term for each forgery count and ordered that the terms be served consecutively, for a total of 14 months. The trial court also ordered Balderson to pay restitution in the amount of $834.72, as jointly recommended by the parties.
{¶ 4} Balderson, pro se, appealed his sentence, asserting the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred in sentencing Appellant to consecutive sentences without findings from the record.
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Balderson challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences. He appears to argue that the record does not support consecutive sentencing. As an initial matter, Balderson complains that the trial court and the prosecutor referred to a PSI but the PSI was not made available to him. He also contends that the PSI was not made a part of the record because it was not presented to the court at the sentencing hearing and was not a part of the information provided to him by the Ohio Public Defender when the attorney withdrew from representing him on appeal.
{¶ 6} If a PSI is prepared, the court shall allow the prosecutor handling the case and the defendant‘s counsel or the defendant to inspect the report prior to sentencing.
{¶ 7} The trial court ordered the preparation of a PSI. At Balderson‘s sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that it had received and reviewed the PSI. The court asked defense counsel if she had any corrections or additions to the report. Defense counsel stated that she did not. This statement implies that she reviewed the PSI prior to sentencing. Because
{¶ 8} In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment,
- 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 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense. - 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.
- The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 9} A trial court is required to make the findings mandated by
Pursuant to Revised Code 2929.14 subsection C4, because these offenses constitute an ongoing course of conduct, the court believes that no single sentence can satisfy that course of conduct, the danger that that conduct poses to the community, and in order to ensure the safety of the community, those sentences will run consecutive with each other, for a total of 14 months of incarceration with 79 days of credit.
(Tr. at 29.)
{¶ 11} Although the trial court used some of the statutory terminology in making its findings, it did not use the exact language of the statute. A talismanic incantation of the words of the statute is not necessary, however, as long as an appellate court is able to discern that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis. Bonnell at ¶ 37. It is clear from the sentencing hearing transcript that the trial court considered Balderson‘s lengthy criminal history and found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish Balderson. This satisfies the first finding required under
{¶ 12} The disproportionality finding of
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.
Courts have held that even though a trial court employed the language of
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Balderson‘s sole assignment of error is overruled, and we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.