STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff - Appellee -vs- RANDALL L. BONNELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant
Case No. 14 CAA 10 0063
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
June 11, 2015
[Cite as State v. Bonnell, 2015-Ohio-2367.]
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J., Hon. William B. Hoffman, J., Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11-CR-I-10-0542B; JUDGMENT: Affirmed
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 11, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee
CAROL HAMILTON O‘BRIEN Delaware County Prosecutor
By: ERIC C. PENKAL Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 140 North Sandusky Street Delaware, OH 43015
For Defendant-Appellant
FRANCISCO E. LUTTECKE Assistant Public Defender 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400 Columbus, OH 43215
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant Randall L. Bonnell, Jr. appeals a judgment of the Delaware County Common Pleas Court resentencing him to eight years and five months incarceration for tampering with evidence (
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On August 26, 2010, appellant and Raymond Bush attempted to break into a vending machine at the Red Roof Inn in Grove City. In the process, they ruptured a water line, causing the room to flood. They fled without stealing any money.
{¶3} On November 22, 2010, March 23, 2011, and October 3, 2011, they broke into vending machines at a Best Western Hotel in Delaware County, stealing approximately $117 in change and damaging machines owned by the Scioto Vending Company. Police arrested them as they drove away from the hotel on October 3, 2011.
{¶4} A Delaware County grand jury indicted appellant for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, possessing criminal tools, obstructing official business, three counts of burglary, and four counts each of theft and tampering with coin machines. He subsequently pled guilty to three third-degree-felony counts of burglary and one fifth-degree-felony count of tampering with coin machines, and the remaining counts were dismissed.
{¶5} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard arguments from the parties, but no one addressed whether the sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively. The state asserted only that appellant was not amenable to community control. The following colloquy occurred:
{¶7} “The defendant: Yes.
{¶8} “The court: On the PSI pages 4 through 16, it‘s pretty clear that at this point in time you‘ve shown very little respect for society and the rules of society. The court feels that a sentence is appropriate.”
{¶9} The court then sentenced appellant to 30 months in prison for each burglary and 11 months in prison for tampering with coin machines, imposing consecutive sentences to aggregate a term of eight years and five months in prison.
{¶10} In its journal entry imposing this sentence, the court wrote:
{¶11} “Having considered the factual background of this case, the negotiations conducted in this case, the Pre–Sentence Investigation report prepared by Adult Court Services, the Defendant‘s counsel‘s statement, the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney‘s statement, the Defendant‘s statement, and, having considered the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶12} “1. The Defendant‘s lengthy prison record.
{¶13} “2. A prison sentence is appropriate.”
{¶14} Appellant appealed to this Court, asserting that the imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law because the trial court failed to make the findings required by
{¶15} “The entire record adequately reflects consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and to punish Bonnell, and that they were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he posed to the public. In addition, Bonnell‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime.” Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶16} The Ohio Supreme Court granted appellant‘s discretionary appeal. The Supreme Court held that in order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by
{¶17} The trial court imposed the same sentence on remand. At the sentencing hearing, the court stated:
{¶18} “The court finds that the consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish you and that consecutive sentences are not
{¶19} Further, the court stated in its sentencing entry:
{¶20} “The Court further finds that a stated prison term is consistent with the purposes and principles of Sentencing and that the Defendant is not amenable to Community Control Sanctions and that a consecutive sentence should be imposed because of the findings set forth above and consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and 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. Further, the Court finds the offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.” Judgment Entry On Sentence, September 9, 2014.
{¶21} Appellant assigns a single error to the resentencing entry:
{¶22} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT MADE A FINDING OF PROPORTIONALITY THAT WAS UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.”
{¶23} In appellant‘s first appeal, we concluded, “The entire record adequately reflects consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and to punish Bonnell, and that they were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he posed to the public. In addition, Bonnell‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime.”
By: Baldwin, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.