STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUSTIN COHEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 108652
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
March 26, 2020
2020-Ohio-1119
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 26, 2020
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-18-634477-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Denise Salerno, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph V. Pagano, for appellant.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Justin Cohee (“Cohee“) appeals from his sentence following a guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Cohee‘s sentence but remand for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry that accurately reflects the waiver of court costs.
{¶ 2} On November 27, 2018, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Cohee on two counts of attempted rape in violation of
{¶ 3} On March 28, 2019, the court held a plea hearing. Cohee pleaded guilty to three amended counts of gross sexual imposition, an amended count of attempted rape, and two counts of importuning as charged. The remaining counts and specifications were nolled. The court referred Cohee to the probation department for preparation of a presentence-investigation report (“PSI“).
{¶ 4} On May 7, 2019, the court held a sentencing hearing. The court heard statements from the prosecutor, who read statements from one of the victims and her mother into the record. The prosecutor informed the court that at the time of the incidents leading to Cohee‘s indictment, he was living with his girlfriend and her two daughters. Cohee initiated a sexual relationship with one of the children and repeatedly attempted to force himself on her. Cohee also offered the girl money and
{¶ 5} The court stated that it had considered the record, the statements made at sentencing, the PSI and mitigation-of-penalty reports, and the victim impact statements. The court also stated that it considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing. The court sentenced Cohee to 12 months on each of the three gross sexual imposition counts, 12 months on one importuning count, 24 months on the other importuning count, and seven years on the attempted rape count. The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary and stated that all sentences would run consecutive, for a total prison term of 14 years. The court journalized this sentence, and subsequently issued a corrected journal entry reflecting a total sentence of 13 years.
{¶ 6} Cohee appealed, presenting two assignments of error for our review.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} In Cohee‘s first assignment of error, he argues that his sentence is contrary to law because the record does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences on all counts.
{¶ 8} Pursuant to
- (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
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under postrelease control for a prior offense. - (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 committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
- (c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 10} Here, Cohee does not dispute that the trial court made the required findings pursuant to
{¶ 11} The sentencing transcript reflects that the court considered the PSI and the mitigation-of-penalty reports, both of which addressed his substance-abuse and mental-health issues. The court further noted that it considered that Cohee had suffered abuse as a child, stating:
When you‘re not properly treated and you don‘t go through counseling and trauma therapy that gets buried and it manifests itself and it creates victims and that‘s unfortunate. And it‘s not a cop-out for you, but it‘s a mitigating factor.
The record clearly undermines Cohee‘s argument.
{¶ 12} Moreover, Cohee has failed to establish that the court‘s consecutive-sentence findings are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. A review of the record clearly shows that the court both considered the factors in
{¶ 14} In his second assignment of error, Cohee argues that although the trial court waived court costs at his sentencing hearing, the corrected journal entry imposed court costs. This error is clerical and can be corrected with a nunc pro tunc entry that properly reflects what the court actually did at Cohee‘s sentencing hearing. State v. Hampton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103992, 2016-Ohio-5419, ¶ 3. Therefore, Cohee‘s second assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 15} Judgment is affirmed. However, this case is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the sentencing journal entry to accurately reflect the waiver of court costs.
It is ordered that appellant and appellee share costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR