State v. HamrickState v. Hamrick
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 24, 2024
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Connor Davin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Aaron T. Baker, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Branden Hamrick (“Hamrick“), appeals from his sentence, raising the following assignment of error for review:
The trial court‘s consecutive sentencing of Mr. Hamrick was in error because the sentencing findings were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.
{¶ 2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm Hamrick‘s convictions and sentence. However, we remand for the issuance of a nunc pro tunc journаl entry.
I. Procedural and Factual History
{¶ 3} On March 2, 2022, Hamrick was named in a single-count indictment in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-666734-A, charging him with failure to verify his address in violation of
{¶ 4} On March 14, 2023, Hamrick was named in a three-count indictment in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-679155-A, charging him with failure to comply in violation of
{¶ 6} On April 28, 2023, Hamrick was named in a five-count indictment in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-680652-A, charging him with discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises in violation of
{¶ 7} On July 26, 2023, Hamrick was named in a single-count indictment in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-683274-A, charging him with felonious assault in violation of
{¶ 8} On December 20, 2023, Hamrick appeared before the trial court and expressed his willingness to accept the terms of a negotiated plea agreement with the State that would resolve Case Nos. CR-22-666734-A, CR-23-679155-A, CR-23-680647-A, CR-23-680652-A, and CR-23-683274-A.
{¶ 9} In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-666734-A, Hamrick pleaded guilty to a single count of failure to verify his current residence address in violation of
{¶ 10} In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-679155-A, Hamrick pleaded guilty to a single count of attempted failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer in violation of
{¶ 11} In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-680647-A, Hamrick pleaded guilty to a single count of having weapons while under disability in violation of
{¶ 13} In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-683274-A, Hamriсk pleaded guilty to a single count of attempted felonious assault in violation of
{¶ 14} Relevant to this appeal, the trial court ordered in individual prison terms imposed in Case Nos. CR-22-666734-A, CR-23-679155-A, CR-23-680647-A, CR-23-680652-A, and CR-23-683274-A to run concurrently with each other, but consecutive to an indefinite prison term of four-to-six years previously imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-680117-B. (Tr. 59.) The sentence imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-680117-B related to the stolen vehicle that Hamrick subsequently used tо evade the police in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-679155-A.
{¶ 15} Hamrick now appeals from the imposition of consecutive sentences.
{¶ 16} In the sole assignment of error, Hamrick argues the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to lаw and unsupported by the record.
{¶ 17} We review felony sentences under the standard of review set forth in
{¶ 18}
(а) 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.
{¶ 19} Conformity with
{¶ 20} In this case, the trial court made the following statement on the record when imposing consecutive sentences:
I am mаking them consecutive because to do otherwise would demean the seriousness of the crimes committed and the defendant‘s criminal history says that it is necessary to protect the public from future crime. Very close in time this defendant committed these сrimes, including a high-speed chase, including a discharge of a firearm . . . and I believe that it‘s not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and to the degree of danger the defendant poses to the public. And at least two of thеse offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, especially the failure to comply, along with the discharge[.]
And his history of criminal conduct also dictates that consecutive sentences are necеssary to protect the public from future crime by this defendant.
(Tr. 61-63.)
{¶ 21} On appeal, Hamrick does not dispute that the trial court made the necessary findings for imposing consecutive sentences under
{¶ 22} Relevant to this appeal, ”
{¶ 23} After careful review, we are unable to conclude that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court‘s findings under
{¶ 24} Moreover, even if this сourt were to construe each criminal case as involving separate “courses of conduct,” we find the trial court made the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences by relying on the alternative factor set forth in
{¶ 25} Under the forgoing circumstances, we cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court‘s finding under
{¶ 26} Hamrick‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 27} Judgment affirmed. Remanded for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc journal entry as direct by this decision.
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 remandеd to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc journal entry as direct by this decision.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, J., and WILLIAM A. KLATT, J.,* CONCUR
(*Sitting by assignment: William A. Klatt, J., retired, of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.)