State v. LongState v. Long
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Adrienne E. Linnick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
D. Coleman Bond, for appellant.
WILLIAM A. KLATT, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant John W. Long (“Long“) appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences for gross sexual imposition and other charges. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶ 2} This is an appeal from two separate cases. On September 13, 2022, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-674230-A (“the Independence case“), a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Long on three counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of
{¶ 3} On April 27, 2023, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-680663-A (“the Shaker Heights case“) a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Long on three counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of
{¶ 4} Long initially pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases. On July 17, 2023, the State filed a motion for joinder of both cases. On July 25, 2023, Long
{¶ 5} On February 5, 2024, the trial court held a change-of-plea hearing. In the Independence case, Long pleaded guilty to three counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of
{¶ 6} On March 11, 2024, the court held a sentencing hearing. The court heard from the assistant prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, Long, Long‘s cousin, both of Long‘s victims, family members of both victims, and a detective who investigated Long‘s case. The assistant prosecuting attorney asked the court to impose a consecutive sentence of 13 years.
{¶ 7} In the Independence case, the court sentenced Long to 18 months in prison on one count of gross sexual imposition, 12 months in prison for each of the two remaining counts of gross sexual imposition, and 60 months in prison on the sexual battery count. The court ordered those sentences to be served consecutively for a total sentence of eight and one-half years. In the Shaker Heights case, the court sentenced Long to 18 months on one count of gross sexual imposition and 12 months on each of the two remaining counts of gross sexual imposition. The court ordered those sentences to be served consecutively to each other and to the sentence in the
{¶ 8} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court made the following consecutive sentence findings:
I am ordering the defendant serve his prison terms consecutively because I find that a consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime and to adequately punish the offender. I further find that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant‘s conduct and to the danger he still poses to the public.
I further find specifically under subsection A that the defendant committed one or more of the multiple offenses while awaiting trial or sentencing.
I further find with both cases in mind, and given the different dates on which they were committed in time, that the defendant‘s history, thereby established, demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the defendant.
(Tr. 223-224.)
{¶ 9} Long filed a timely notice of appeal and presents a single assignment of error for our review:
The trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences was clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 10} In Long‘s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences when the trial court‘s findings made pursuant to
{¶ 11} Under
{¶ 13} To challenge consecutive sentences on appeal, a defendant may argue either that (1) the sentence is contrary to law because the trial court did not make the required
{¶ 14} Here, the trial court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime by Long and to punish him, that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses to the public, and that Long committed one or more of the offenses while awaiting trial. Long does not dispute that the trial court made the requisite findings under
{¶ 15} This court has recently rejected a similar argument. In State v. Banville, the appellant received consecutive sentences across multiple cases. State v. Banville, 2024-Ohio-956 (8th Dist.). The appellant acknowledged that the trial court made the requisite findings but argued that the findings were only relevant to “running the sentence ‘within this case’ consecutively and that the trial court went on to run the sentence consecutive to two other cases without having made separate findings in that regard” and without giving any additional information about the other cases at the sentencing hearing. Id. at ¶ 7. This court rejected the appellant‘s argument, noting that
{¶ 16} Therefore, after careful review, we are unable to conclude that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court‘s finding under
{¶ 17} 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
WILLIAM A. KLATT, JUDGE*
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR
(*Sitting by assignment: William A. Klatt, J., retired, of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.)