STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - BENJAMIN L. BECKWITH, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 2012-A-0051
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
May 6, 2013
[Cite as State v. Beckwith, 2013-Ohio-1739.]
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 12 CR 222. Judgment: Affirmed.
Marie Lane, Ashtabula County Public Defender, Inc., 4817 State Road, #202, Ashtabula, OH 44004-6927 (For Defendant-Appellant).
OPINION
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Benjamin L. Beckwith, appeals from the October 3, 2012 judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him for illegal manufacture of drugs.
{¶2} On May 11, 2012, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted appellant in Case No. 12 CR 222 on three counts: count one, illegal manufacture of methamphetamine, a felony of the second degree, in violation of
{¶3} Thereafter, on August 10, 2012, appellant withdrew his former not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to one count of illegal manufacture of drugs, a second degree felony. The trial court accepted appellant‘s guilty plea, dismissed the remaining charges, and deferred sentencing.
{¶4} On October 3, 2012, the court sentenced appellant to a three year mandatory term of incarceration, with 146 days of credit for time already served. The court ordered appellant to serve his sentence concurrently with a sentence imposed in Case No. 12 CR 220 for theft, and consecutively to a sentence imposed in Case No. 12 CR 254 for illegal manufacture of drugs. The court also notified appellant that his sentence is subject to a three year period of post-release control. Appellant filed a timely appeal and asserts the following assignment of error for our review:
{¶5} “The trial court committed error when it ordered consecutive sentences without stating the requisite findings on the record.”
{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court failed to make the findings necessary to sentence him to consecutive sentences under
{¶7} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth a two step process for examining felony sentences. The first step is to “examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in
{¶8} We note that H.B. 86, which became effective on September 30, 2011, revived the language provided in former
{¶9}
{¶10} “(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the 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 if the court also finds any of the following:
{¶11} “(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
{¶12} “(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
{¶13} “(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
{¶14} In Section 11, the legislature explained that in amending former
{¶15} Although H.B. 86 requires the trial court to make findings before imposing a consecutive sentence, it does not require the trial court to give its reasons for imposing the sentence. State v. Frasca, 11th Dist. No. 2011-T-0108, 2012-Ohio-3746, ¶57-58. When making findings regarding consecutive sentencing, “‘a verbatim recitation of the statutory language is not required by the trial court.‘” Id. at ¶ 60, quoting State v. Green, 11th Dist. No. 2003-A-0089, 2005-Ohio-3268, ¶ 26, citing State v. Grissom, 11th Dist. No. 2001-L-107, 2002-Ohio-5154, ¶ 21.
{¶17} “So although the defendant doesn‘t have a serious past record, and the Court notes he‘s 22 years of age so he‘s only had four years as an adult, but to have four felony matters pending here at the same time is very unusual, have that many major offenses against the same person.
{¶18} “* * *
{¶19} “On the recidivism factors the Court finds recidivism is likely based on the two felony convictions of recent time frame and the two that are pending before me. So the Court finds that recidivism is likely.”
{¶20} “* * *
{¶21} “The Court‘s again reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report. The defendant, obviously, as I think it was stated earlier, there was a warrant out for him. Actually at the defendant‘s home they found meth labs. The Court was shown some photographs in the presence of defense counsel. Impressed the Court. There was more than just a two-liter bottle there full of drugs. There was other equipment and, you know, it‘s been stated here that there were others involved, too; and you know, when you‘re making meth, I can‘t sit here and believe you‘re using all that meth yourself. You‘re disbursing that. You‘re getting other people involved in this; and other people have families just like you do, and they‘re going to wind up in court, and they‘re, they‘re concerned about their loved ones.
{¶23} “You know, this Court only has so many tools, and when we run out of the treatment tools, which the State has pretty much run out of because you‘re not interested in treatment, there‘s nothing left for us except to incarcerate you.
{¶24} “The meth and the heroin I see in the Presentence Report, according to the information, over your lifetime you‘ve admitted to using methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and a variety of pain pills. You‘ve tried it all.
{¶25} “And you know, my experience with people that have a drug addiction as serious as yours is, it‘s going to be a lifetime effort for you to maintain control of that. You‘re going to have urges for drugs for the rest of your life. If I were to let you out of jail today, I would bet within a couple of days’ time you‘d be right back in and having a high.
{¶26} “* * *
{¶27} “In your case the Court‘s looked at the recidivism factors on the drug charge, and you know, without some treatment or incarceration, recidivism isn‘t only likely, it‘s guaranteed in your case.
{¶28} “Under the seriousness factors, the Court finds that the more serious factors would apply. * * *”
{¶29} “* * *”
{¶30} “But, you know, you‘re 22 years old now. You‘re an adult. You‘re a man. You got to do more than just run around, make drugs and feel good all the time. You
{¶31} “* * *”
{¶32} “But I think in this case obviously community - - well, community control is not in the picture because there‘s a mandatory sentence. But even if it were, it would demean the seriousness of your conduct, wouldn‘t adequately protect the public from future crime.
{¶33} “Considering the seriousness factors, which the Court finds to override the less serious, the recidivism factors which are likely, and the purposes and principles of the sentencing statutes, the Court finds that a prison sentence is not only mandated by the law but is required in this case.
{¶34} “So it is the judgment and sentence of the Court, I‘m going to give you the minimum sentence mainly because I‘m going to make it consecutive to the other minimum you‘ve got in the other case; so although you‘ve got two convictions, you‘re gonna get a medium-range sentence when it‘s all said and done.
{¶35} “But it is the judgment and sentence of the Court that you serve a three-year mandatory sentence on this case for conviction of Illegal Manufacturing of Drugs, a felony of the second degree.
{¶36} “I‘m gonna order that this sentence be served consecutive to [Case No.] 12-CR-254; and I‘m gonna order it be served concurrently with Case Number 12-CR-220. * * *”
{¶38} Although the trial court may not have used the exact wording of
{¶39} For the foregoing reasons, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is not well-taken. The judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
concur.