STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JULIUS MCKINNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-210276
TRIAL NO. B-1903779
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
March 18, 2022
2022-Ohio-849
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David Hoffman, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Julius McKinney appeals the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences. Because the defendant‘s criminal history supports the trial court‘s finding that consecutive sentences were necessary, we affirm the imposition of consecutive sentences.
I. Facts and Procedure
{¶2} In May 2019, McKinney was speeding on Colerain Avenue in Cincinnati, Ohio, with David Coffman in the passenger seat. As McKinney accelerated to 88 m.p.h., he collided with an SUV driven by Vicki Noe. McKinney‘s car then ricocheted off Noe‘s SUV and veered into oncoming traffic, where he struck a car occupied by Richard and Lyneltea Ritzi. Coffman, Noe, and the Ritzis suffered serious, permanent injuries.
{¶3} Two years later, McKinney pleaded guilty to four counts of vehicular assault in violation of
{¶4} At the sentencing hearing, the court sentenced McKinney to four consecutive 15-month sentences, for a total of 60 months of incarceration. The court described the collision as “a road rage incident” that was “consistent with [McKinney‘s] prior conduct.” The court reviewed McKinney‘s criminal history, which included countless license suspensions, seven convictions for driving with a suspended license, numerous speeding violations, and convictions for breaking and entering.
{¶5} The court informed McKinney that consecutive sentences were “necessary to protect the public and/or punish the defendant” and “not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and the danger he poses to the public.” Next, the court found that the offenses were committed in “one or more
{¶6} Finally, the court found that McKinney‘s criminal history “shows a need to protect the public. There is one incident after another of just driving, you know, just thumbing your nose at the traffic laws. And that all culminated in this incident. The fact that you got away with this so many times, and finally it added up and you ended up hurting some people very, very severely.”
{¶7} In its sentencing entry, the court repeated the need to protect the public and punish McKinney. In addition, the court found that:
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 defendant‘s conduct.
* * *
The defendant‘s criminal history shows a need to protect the public from future crime by the defendant.
{¶8} McKinney appeals.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, McKinney challenges the sentencing court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences. McKinney acknowledges that he did not object to the imposition of consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing, and therefore, has forfeited all but plain error. State v. White, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190589, 2021-Ohio-1644, ¶ 54, quoting State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 121, 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000); see
{¶10} An appellate court reviews a trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences under
{¶11} Ordinarily, multiple offenses are presumed to run concurrently unless the trial court makes the necessary findings under
{¶12} Finally, the court must find that one of three aggravating factors in
1.) the offenses were committed by the defendant while awaiting trial or sentencing, under community control, or under post-release control.
3.) the defendant‘s “history of criminal conduct demonstrates” a need to protect the public from future crime.
{¶13} While these statutory findings must be made at a sentencing hearing and incorporated into a sentencing entry, “[t]he trial court need not recite the findings verbatim.” State v. Pettus, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170712, 2019-Ohio-2023, ¶ 65, citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29. Rather, this court “must be able to discern from the record that the court engaged in the requisite analysis and determine that the record contains evidence to support the findings.” Pettus at ¶ 65, citing Bonnell at ¶ 29.
{¶14} The trial court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and punish the defendant, and were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant‘s conduct and the danger posed to the public. Next, the trial court found consecutive sentences were necessary as the offenses were committed in one or more courses of conduct and because McKinney‘s criminal history demonstrated a need to protect the public.
{¶15} McKinney challenges the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences under
{¶17} Because the sentencing court made the necessary findings under
III. Conclusion
{¶18} The trial court did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences for multiple counts of vehicular assault and we overrule the single assignment of error. The trial court‘s judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.