State v. McGowanState v. McGowan
Beth A. Tischler, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alexis M. Hotz, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Karin L. Coble, for appellant.
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Matthew C. McGowan, appeals the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him following a guilty plea of three counts of rape, and sentencing him to a total prison term of 30 to 35 years. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On December 18, 2019, the Sandusky County Grand Jury returned a five-count indictment, charging appellant with four counts of rape in violation of
{¶ 3} On March 19, 2020, appellant withdrew his initial plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty to three amended counts of rape in violation of
{¶ 4} At the sentencing hearing on May 13, 2020, the trial court considered the physical and psychological harm to the victim—which the court acknowledged was “difficult to quantify“—the fact that appellant‘s relationship with the victim facilitated the offense, appellant‘s criminal history that included a prior conviction for statutory rape, appellant‘s likelihood to be a recidivist, and appellant‘s expression of remorse. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced appellant to indefinite prison terms of 10 to 15 years on each count. The court further ordered those terms to be served consecutively for a
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 5} Appellant has timely appealed his judgment of conviction, and now asserts one assignment of error for our review:
1. Appellant‘s consecutive sentence is not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.
III. Analysis
{¶ 6} “Where the appellant challenges the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences, we are bound to review the issue under
that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and * * * any of the following: (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 post-release 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.
{¶ 7} In support of his assignment of error, appellant first argues that the trial court failed to specifically verbalize which factual circumstances supported the court‘s findings. However, such a detailed recitation is not required. “[A]s long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29.
{¶ 8} Turning then, to whether the trial court‘s findings are supported by the record, appellant relies on State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102449, 2016-Ohio-1536, in which the Eighth District reversed the judgment of the trial court, and modified Johnson‘s sentence from 50 years to life in prison to 25 years to life in prison. In that case, Johnson pleaded guilty to raping a three-year-old child and a five-year-old child. On appeal, the Eighth District determined that consecutive sentences were not warranted because the record did not support the trial court‘s finding that “consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public.”
{¶ 9} Appellant argues that like Johnson, the nature of the offense is itself “heinous” and “terrible,” but the nature of the offense alone should not automatically warrant consecutive sentences. Upon review, we do not find appellant‘s arguments under Johnson persuasive. We read Johnson to turn on that court‘s belief that a prison sentence of 50 years to life was simply too long and was not necessary to protect the public from the defendant, and was not “the minimum sanction[] that accomplishes the overriding purposes of felony sentencing * * * without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local governmental resources” as required by
{¶ 11} Accordingly, appellant‘s assignment of error is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice has been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.
JUDGE
CONCUR.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.