STATE OF OHIO v. THOMAS EADDIE
No. 106019
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
March 15, 2018
[Cite as State v. Eaddie, 2018-Ohio-961.]
BEFORE: Blackmon, P.J., Laster Mays, J., and Jones, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-16-605555-A and CR-16-607340-A; RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 15, 2018
Michael Goldberg
The Goldberg Law Firm
323 Lakeside Avenue, West, Suite 450
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O‘Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Katherine Mullin
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Thomas Eaddie (“Eaddie“) appeals from the consecutive sentences imposed following his convictions in Case Nos. CR-16-605555-A and CR-16-607340-A. Eaddie assigns the following error for our review:
The sentence imposed by the trial court was unreasonable and contrary to law.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court‘s sentence. The apposite facts follow.
{¶3} On May 9, 2016, Eaddie was indicted in CR-16-605555-A. He was charged with having a weapon while under disability, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, carrying a concealed weapon, two counts of drug trafficking, two counts of drug possession, and possessing criminal tools. The counts also contained various forfeiture specifications and the drug charges contained one-year firearm specifications.
{¶4} On June 29, 2016, Eaddie was indicted in CR-16-607340-A. He was charged with aggravated burglary, misdemeanor assault, domestic violence, criminal damaging, burglary, three counts of menacing by stalking, and possessing criminal tools.
{¶5} Eaddie pled not guilty in both cases, and the trial court ordered Eaddie to undergo inpatient competency and sаnity evaluations. The court also appointed an expert for an independent psychological evaluation.
{¶6} Eaddie subsequently reached plea agreements with the state in both matters. In CR-16-605555-A, Eaddie pled guilty to having a weapon whilе under disability, and to
{¶7} On June 21, 2017, Eaddie was sentenced to thirty months in CR-16-605555-A, to run consecutive with a seven-year term sentence in CR-16-607340-A.
Consecutive Sentences
{¶8} In his sole assigned error, Eaddie argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because the record does not support the court‘s findings under
{¶9} In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in
{¶10} Beforе a trial court may impose consecutive sentences, the court must first make specific findings mandated by
(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, or 2929.18 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.
{¶12} At the sentencing hearing in this matter, the trial court stated as follows:
*
You have a terrible record, okay? Which began as far back as 2003 with aggravated rioting as a juvenile, failure to comply with a signal or order of a рolice officer as an adult. Obviously open container, driving under the influence, drug trafficking * * Anyway, you have had drug trafficking cases previously, aggravated menacing [in 2011 and 2016]. It‘s obvious from your record and the answers to my questions that it is necessary to run them consecutive to protect the public from future crime from you, and I don‘t believe it‘s disproportionate to the seriousness of your conduct and the danger to the public. You are a drug dealer. You continue to sell drugs. You continue to сarry weapons. You continue to act in a manner close to menacing, your third time, and at least your history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by you.
{¶13} These statements demonstrate that the trial court considered Eaddie‘s extensive criminal history and the nature of his conduct in the instant matters. The court found that the consecutive sentences are necessary to protect thе public from future crime in light of Eaddie‘s criminal history, and that the court determined that consecutive sentences were necessary to punish him due to his continued involvement in criminal activity. Additionally, based upon Eaddie‘s record and conduct, the court clearly found that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of Eaddie‘s conduct and to the danger he presents to the public. Additionally, the court found and the record shows, that Eaddie‘s history of сriminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime. Further, the sentencing journal entries set forth all of the findings required under
{¶14} Having determined that the trial court made the required findings under
Judicial Bias
{¶15} Eaddie next argues that during sentencing, the trial court exhibited bias and hostility against him because it “badgered,” “mocked,” and dеmeaned him while “feigning concern” about his medical condition prior to his plea and during sentencing.
{¶16}
{¶17} However, in State v. Dean, 127 Ohio St.3d 140, 2010-Ohio-5070, 937 N.E.2d 97, the court recognized that “trial before a biased judge is fundamentally unfair and denies a defendant due process of law.” Id. at ¶ 48, quoting State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 34. However, “opiniоns formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seаted favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Dean at ¶ 49, quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).
{¶18} This court applied the foregoing principles to sentencing challenges in Frazier, and in State v. Filous, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104287, 2016-Ohio-8312, to determine whether purported judicial bias rendered the sentence unlawful. The Filous court explained:
[t]he law presumes thаt a judge is unbiased and unprejudiced in the matters over which he or she presides, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling in order to overcome the presumption. State v. Power, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 12 CO 14, 2013-Ohio-4254, ¶ 23, citing In re Disqualification of Olivito, 74 Ohio St.3d 1261, 1262, 657 N.E.2d 1361 (1994).
Filous at ¶ 14.
{¶19} In this matter, the record demonstrates that when the competency and sanity reports were stipulated into evidence, the trial court made the following remark:
And the [competency and sanity report] findings are that he does not have a present mental condition that is within reasonable medical certainty, and that he is presently malingering his psychiatric symptoms and cognitive deficits.
{¶20} We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court was restating the conclusions reached in the sanity and competency report. The statement contained a term of art used in the report that was a fair comment upon facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings. The statement does not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality.
{¶21} Additionally, the court stated during pretrial proceedings:
So I‘m asking you, do you want me to order that they stabilize your head so it doesn‘t move? They can do that. People who are in accidents that have those problems, they screw a frame like onto your head — it‘s call a halo — into your shoulders and into your head. And then your head will
never move, you just — your body can move, but your head is immobilized. Is that what you need? And you thinking about that bullet in your head can make your day bad. So try to think about other things. Try to think about good things. ***
I guess I would look at it this way. You were lucky that you got shot in the head and you didn‘t die, you know? So every day that that bullet doesn‘t shift is a day that you might not have had; do you know what I mean? * * * Well, I said I‘m going to get your medical rеcords, I‘ll give them to my experts, and they‘ll tell me if you‘re getting the right treatment or not, okay?
{¶22} We have reviewed the comments and find absolutely no evidence to overcome the presumption that the trial court was not biased or prejudiced against Eaddie. The comments were part of repeated inquiries to determine whether Eaddie needed additional medical treatment to stabilize his head and prevent movement of the bullet. The comments were neither demeaning nor mocking. To the contrary, the record indicates that the court shared one of its own experiences with Eaddie and offered strategies to him. The court expressed empathy for Eaddie and stated that it would make further inquiries about his condition аnd medical needs. In no way do the comments display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism and they do not undermine the lawful sentence that the court imposed.
{¶23} The assigned error is without merit.
{¶24} Judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant сosts 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.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR