State v. ColonState v. Colon
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 23, 2022
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Mahmoud S. Awadallah and Poula E. Hanna, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Law Office of Craig W. Smotzer, LLC, and Craig W. Smotzer, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J.:
{¶ 1} Selena Colon appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court in this case. Upon review, we affirm the consecutive sentence that was imposed.
{¶ 3} On August 19, 2021, as part of a plea agreement with the state, Colon entered a plea of guilty to four counts, including two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (Counts 1 and 2), felonies of the second degree in violation of
{¶ 4} At the time of her plea, the trial court advised Colon of the mandatory prison time carried by Counts 1, 2, and 5, and the court informed her that the prison terms could be consecutively or concurrently imposed. The trial court indicated that because Colon was pleading guilty to two felonies of the second degree, the Reagan Tokes Law would apply. The court advised Colon on indefinite terms under the Reagan Tokes Law, and defense counsel noted an objection.
{¶ 5} On October 6, 2021, the trial court sentenced Colon. In describing the tragic events at sentencing, the state indicated that Colon was driving at speeds over 90 miles per hour, which was nearly triple the posted speed limit, she did not have the car lights on, she was driving erratically and passing other vehicles, she had high amounts of alcohol in her blood, and she struck another car with such force
{¶ 6} The trial court sentenced Colon as follows: Count 1, an indefinite prison term for a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 9 years; Count 2, 6 years; Count 5, 3 years; and Count 7, 180 days in jail and a fine of $1,075. The court ordered Counts 2 and 5 to run consecutive to Count 1, and the court ordered Count 7 to run concurrent with the other counts. Prior to imposing sentence, the court made findings for imposing consecutive sentences pursuant to
{¶ 7} Colon timely filed this appeal.1
{¶ 8} Colon raises two assignments of error for our review. Under her first assignment of error, Colon claims the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence without making all required findings under
{¶ 10} Pursuant to
{¶ 11} For a trial court to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, it must make the statutory findings mandated by
{¶ 12} In this matter, contrary to Colon‘s contentions, the record reveals that the trial court made the requisite findings under
[a]t 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.
(Emphasis added.) Colon argues that trial court could not find that the offenses in this action were committed as part of “one or more courses of conduct” because she claims the conduct involved one act that culminated in the injury and loss of life to the victims.
{¶ 14} The plain language of
{¶ 15} Although Ohio‘s sentencing statutes do not specifically define “course of conduct,” the Supreme Court of Ohio has found that a course of conduct may be established by factual links, such as time, location, cause of death, similar motivation, or some connection that ties the offenses together as part of a single
{¶ 16} Upon our review of the record, we find the trial court engaged in the correct analysis, made the findings required by
{¶ 18} We need not dwell on the arguments presented. The Ohio Supreme Court held in State v. Maddox, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-764, ¶ 1, that constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act are ripe for review. In accordance with this court‘s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.), the constitutional challenges presented in this appeal are overruled. Accordingly, we overrule the second assignment of error.
{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR
N.B. Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane joined the dissenting opinion by Judge Lisa B. Forbes and the concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion by Judge Laster Mays in Delvallie and would have found the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional.
Judge Lisa B. Forbes is constrained to apply Delvallie. For a full explanation, see State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.) (Forbes, J., dissenting).