State v. LynchState v. Lynch
Michele Temmel, 6 South Second Street, Suite 305, Hamilton, OH 45011, for defendant-appellant
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Donovan D. Lynch a.k.a. Donavan Lynch, appeals from the aggregate nine-year prison sentence he received in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to nine counts of burglary. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On April 6, 2017, the Butler County Grand Jury returned a 19-count indictment
{¶ 3} On June 8, 2017, Lynch entered a guilty plea to nine counts of burglаry, all third-degree felonies, in exchange for the remaining ten counts being dismissed. After conducting the necessary Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Lynch‘s guilty plea. Approximately one month later, on August 3, 2017, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Lynch to serve nine consecutive 12-mоnth prison terms. The trial court also ordered Lynch to pay nearly $7,000 in restitution and notified Lynch that he would be subject to a mandatory three-year postrelease control term. In reaching this decision, the trial court stated:
[T]he Court has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in
Revised Code Section 2929.11 and the serious and recidivism factors inRevised Code Section 2929.12 , as well as the record of the charges, the statements made at this hearing, the letters that are received from Mr. Lynch which was made part of the file and the letters that are received from his mother which are also part of the file.
The trial court also stated that it had received and reviewed several victim impact statements and the presentence investigation report.
{¶ 4} As it relates to the trial court‘s decision ordering Lynch to serve his nine 12-month prison terms consecutively, the trial court stated, in pertinent part, the following:
The Court is imposing consecutive sentences because they are
necessary to protect the public from future crime, and they are necessary to punish Mr. Lynch. The Court finds that these consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of Mr. Lynch‘s conduct and to the danger that he poses to the public. The Court finds that the offenses – multiple offenses were committed as part of a course of criminal conduct and that the harm caused by the multiple offenses was so great and unusual that no simple prison term can adequately reflect the seriousness of Mr. Lynch‘s conduct.
The Court further finds that Mr. Lynch‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.
{¶ 5} On August 7, 2017, the trial court issued a judgment of conviction entry, which the trial court thereafter amended on August 14, 2017. As part of both its original and amended judgment entries, the trial court reiterated that it had considered both the principles and purposes of sentencing under
{¶ 6} Lynch now appeals from the trial court‘s sentencing decision, raising the following single assignment of error for review.
{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT IMPOSED CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
{¶ 8} In his single assignment of error, Lynch argues the trial court erred by ordering him to serve nine consecutive 12-month prison terms after he pled guilty to nine counts of burglary. In support, rather than arguing the trial court erred by failing to makе the requisite consecutive sentencing findings in accordance with
{¶ 9} As with all felony sentences, we review the trial court‘s sentencing decision under the standard of review set forth in
{¶ 10} As noted above, Lynch argues the trial court‘s sentencing decision was improper because the trial court failed to consider the recidivism factors as set forth under
{¶ 11} After a full and thorough review of the record, it is clear the trial court fully considered all relevant factors as set forth under both
[T]he Court has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in
Revised Code Section 2929.11 and the serious and recidivism factors inRevised Code Section 2929.12 , as well as the record of the charges, the statements made at this hearing, the letters that are received from Mr. Lynch which was made part of the file and the letters that are received from his mother which are also part of the file.
Thereafter, as part of its original and amended judgment entries of conviction, the trial court reiterated that it had considered both the principles and purposes of sentencing under
{¶ 12} It is well-established that when issuing its sentencing decision, “a trial court is not required to сonsider each sentencing factor, but rather to exercise its discretion in determining whether the sentence satisfies the overriding purpose of Ohio‘s sentencing structure.” State v. Moore, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-07-110, 2018-Ohio-1778, ¶ 35, citing State v. Littleton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-03-060, 2016-Ohio-7544, ¶ 12. That is exactly what occurred here. As the record firmly establishes, although Lynch stated that he was remorseful for his conduct, Lynch, by pleading guilty, admitted to embarking on a multi-day crime spree by breaking into several homes where he then stole money, jewelry, clothing, and other valuable personal property to further his addiction to methamphetamine. The serious nature of these offenses supports the trial court‘s sentencing decision.
{¶ 13} The trial court‘s sentencing decision is further supported by Lynch‘s extensive criminal history. This includes Lynch‘s prior convictions for a variety of misdemeanor and felony offenses over a period of nearly three decades that ultimately resulted in Lynch serving several years in prison: namely, shoplifting, petty theft, theft, numerous burglary and breaking and entering offenses, forgery, grand theft, several OVI offenses, public intoxication, eluding, falsification, criminal damaging, assault, arson, disorderly conduct, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
{¶ 14} At sentencing, Lynch, who admitted to being an alcoholic and drug addict, stated in allocution that he wanted to extend his “deepest apologiеs to the victims and their families.” Lynch also stated that he was “humiliated” and “very ashamed of what [he] did[.]” Thereafter, Lynch, claiming his conduct was a mistake that he regretted, informed the trial court that he was willing to “stand outside for eight hours a day on a busy intersection wearing a sign that said I am a thief, I took things that did not belong to me. I would do this for as long as you‘d like[.]” In response, the state refuted Lynch‘s claims and stated:
Judge, the word mistake was used, and I‘m going to torture the phrase, but it‘s something like once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. We‘re looking at a career criminal here, and he can offer to stand on the cоrner wearing a sign all he wants to, but he‘s taken from these people their safety, their security. He can‘t give it back. There‘s no restitution for that.
Given Lynch‘s lengthy criminal history, we agree with the state.
{¶ 15} Lynch disagrees with the trial court‘s sentencing decision and the manner that the trial court balanced the various recidivism factors as set forth under
{¶ 16} In light of the foregoing, because the trial court properly considered the necessary sentencing statutes,
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, J., concurs.
M. POWELL, J., concurs separately.
M. POWELL, J., concurring separately.
{¶ 18} I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately, only to emphasize my view that the
{¶ 19} When an offender is сonvicted of multiple felony offenses a sentencing court must make two separate decisions. The court must first decide what sentence is appropriate for each of the individual offenses, and then whether the multiple sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively.
{¶ 20}
{¶ 21} Likewise, neither are the seriousness and recidivism factors provided in
{¶ 22} Once a sentencing court has determined the apрropriate sentences to be imposed for separate felony offenses, then, and only then, may it consider whether those multiple sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively.
{¶ 23} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized the independent analysis a sentencing court must undertake in determining the appropriate sentence for an individual felony offense from thаt involved in sentencing for multiple felony offenses. State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245. Specifically referencing the purposes and principles of sentencing, the supreme court stated that “pursuant to Ohio law [a sentencing judge] must consider each offense individually and impose a separate sentence for each offense. See
{¶ 24} Appellant does not argue that the 12-month prison terms imposed upon each
{¶ 25} With the proviso that it is unnecessary for a sentencing court to сonsider the