State v. KesslerState v. Kessler
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to
{¶ 2} Appellаnt Delayn Kessler (“Kessler“) appeals from the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to sentence him to maximum consecutive terms of imprisonment. For thе reasons adduced below, we affirm.
{¶ 3} The following facts give rise to this appeal. Kessler was indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on six counts of rape in violation of
{¶ 4} Kessler pled guilty to counts one and five as amеnded, charging rape in violation of
{¶ 5} The trial court proсeeded to sentence Kessler to the maximum sentence of ten years on each count, to run consecutively. The court also ordered the sentences to run concurrent with a prior sentence imposed on Kessler in Huron County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CRI 2002-031.
{¶ 6} Kessler has appealed the trial court‘s sentencing order raising two assignments of error for our review. Kessler‘s first assignment of error provides:
{¶ 7} “The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to consecutive sentences without making the appropriate findings required by
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} In addition,
{¶ 10} Thus, a trial court is required to make at least three findings under
{¶ 11} In this case the trial court set forth the following findings with its reasons on the record:
“THE COURT: All right. Thank you. “* * *
“THE COURT: For a young man, you‘ve reeked terrible havoc on the lives of othеr people in a short period of time, committing some of the most heinous types of crimes that can be committed against children.
“Now, not only the factor of — you know, my understanding is that this is a young man, young boy and a young girl.
“MR. CORRIGAN: Yes, they were four-years old, Judge.
“THE COURT: That we typically see abuse of one sex, but when you start crossing, you know, and you‘re using both sexes, you know, the boy and girl, that, you know, I think it shows added type of depravity in this type of matter.
“And for thоse reasons, the reasons also that you used your position as a relative or closeness with these children to exercise these activities on them, that they‘re — thаt the age of the children, not just [they‘re] presexual in almost any concept of anything, you know, you would have had to have lured them in and, you know, curiosity of children at this age, I just can‘t imagine being there as to sexual aspects of life.
“And as a result, also, that you have committed other offenses of similar import, I believe this is one of the worst forms of the offense аnd that you pose a great likelihood of committing future crimes.
“And, therefore, I‘m going to impose the longest sentence available to me in each of these cоunts of ten years. And for some of the reasons I‘ve already stated, but also that the harm is so great or unusual that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness оf the conduct and that your criminal history shows that consecutive terms are needed to protect the public, that these terms would be served consecutively. You have a prior offense of similar import here.
“And I think that when you cross the lines of abusing children of both sexes, then you‘re in a situation where there is nothing that can be done to help you in these circumstances, or to protect the public and, therefore those terms will be served consecutive. * * *.”
{¶ 12} The defense argues that the trial court was first required to consider imposing concurrent sentences bеfore imposing consecutive sentences. There is no such requirement under the applicable statutes. The defense also argues that the trial court‘s findings were cоnclusory and speculative. We do not agree.
{¶ 13} A review of the above-quoted transcript reflects the trial court made the three required findings under
{¶ 14} While the trial court may not have usеd the exact terminology of the statute in setting forth its findings, we have previously recognized that
{¶ 15} We also find that the trial court sufficiently set forth the reasons for its findings pursuant to
{¶ 16} In this case, the triаl court detailed its reasoning for its imposition of the maximum consecutive sentences issued. The court reasoned Kessler had committed one of the most heinous typеs of crimes that can be committed against children, the victims were children from both sexes, Kessler used his position as a relative or closeness with the children to lure them in, and Kessler had a prior offense of similar import.
{¶ 17} We find that the trial court complied with the sentencing statutes and did not err in imposing the sentences to run consecutively.
{¶ 18} Kessler‘s first assignment of error is overruled. Kessler‘s second assignment of error provides:
{¶ 19} “The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to maximum sentences without making the аppropriate findings.”
{¶ 20} In order for a trial court to impose the maximum sentence, it must make the required findings set forth in
{¶ 21} In State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 329, the Ohio Supreme Court held that in order to lawfully impose a maximum prison sentence, the record must reflect that the trial court found the defendant satisfied at least one of the criteria set forth in
{¶ 22} In addition,
{¶ 23} In the instant case, the trial court found Kessler was an offender who committed one of the worst forms of the offense and posed a great likelihood of committing future crimes. In making this finding, the court detailed its reasons as previously outlined under the first assignment of error.
{¶ 24} Upon review of the record before us, we cannot say the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence.
{¶ 25} Kessler‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
Anne L. Kilbane, P.J., and James D. Sweeney, J.,* concur.