State v. CampbellState v. Campbell
Decided: December 18, 2023
Judgment: Affirmed
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Donald K. Pond, Jr., 567 East Turkeyfoot Lake Road, Suite 107, Akron, OH 44319 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Orion A. Campbell, appeals from his sentence for Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor and Corrupting Another with Drugs in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
{2} On February 9, 2023, Campbell was indicted by the Trumbull County Grand Jury for four counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, felonies of the fourth degree, in violation of
{3} On April 11, 2023, a plea hearing was held and a written plea agreement was filed. Campbell entered a plea of guilty to four counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor and one count of Corrupting Another with Drugs as contained in the indictment. The remaining charge was dismissed. The State indicated it would have proven that Campbell engaged in sexual conduct with a minor female victim who was 13 and 14 years old at the time of the offenses and that he provided her with marijuana.
{4} A sentencing hearing was held on May 25, 2023. Campell apologized to the victim for his actions. Defense counsel observed that Campbell had been a victim of sexual abuse, had a lack of support, had mental health concerns, and had been using drugs from a young age. Counsel emphasized Campbell‘s promise and noted his abilities as an artist. The State presented no argument on sentencing but made a statement from the victim‘s mother, indicating that she would like Campbell to receive the maximum sentence to keep her safe. The State indicated “they [the victim and her mother] wanted to be here but it‘s too much for them to be in the same room with the Defendant.”
{5} The court stated that it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the relevant seriousness and recidivism factors. The court noted the following information from the PSI report: “The Defendant has a prior Rape, Felony One conviction in 2018, also has been a Registered *** Sex Offender. In addition to this count, he‘s got an additional assault charge, theft, and another case of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor pending; *** Obstruction of Official Business and a violation for Failure to Notify a Change of Address.” The court noted that Campbell had already been
{6} On May 31, 2023, the court held a hearing to “finish the sentencing,” noting that it had not made the consecutive sentencing findings. The court found that consecutive sentences are: “necessary to protect the public from future crime, that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the *** seriousness of the offender‘s conduct, that due to the conduct of the Defendant a single prison term would not adequately *** reflect the seriousness of the conduct of the Defendant. The Defendant‘s criminal history clearly demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public.” It found that “everything else will stay as already stated at the prior sentencing.” The trial court memorialized the sentence in a June 5, 2023 entry, which stated the consecutive sentencing findings listed in
{7} Campbell timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:
{8} “The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences upon Defendant-Appellant, Orion Campbell, absent the findings required by law in accordance with
{10} “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.”
{11} A court may order consecutive prison terms if it finds it 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 finds any of the
{12} As observed by the State, Campbell did not object to the consecutive sentences. Where the defendant fails to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences, we limit our review to whether the trial court committed plain error. State v. Aikens, 2016-Ohio-2795, 64 N.E.3d 371, ¶ 53 (11th Dist.). “When the record demonstrates that the trial court failed to make the findings required by
{13} Campbell argues that the trial court erred when it made only part of the “proportionality finding” required for consecutive sentences. We agree that
{15} Here, although not explicitly stating it was conducting such analysis in
{16} Campbell also argues that, even if the lower court made the proper findings, the record clearly and convincingly lacks support for the imposition of consecutive sentences on the ground that he presents a danger to society. First, he contends that his history of crime and high ORAS score demonstrate only a risk of recidivism rather than a danger to the public. However, it is evident that Campbell‘s repeat offenses have had multiple victims and demonstrate that he poses a danger to society as a whole. State v. Homa, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-038, 2021-Ohio-3974, ¶ 28 (considering, in evaluating the evidence supporting the trial court‘s consecutive sentence findings, the defendant‘s risk assessment score in addition to the circumstances of the crime).
{18} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
{19} For the foregoing reasons, Campbell‘s sentence for Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor and Corrupting Another with Drugs in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
MATT LYNCH
JUDGE