STATE OF OHIO v. DARL R. REYNOLDS, SR.
Case No. 12 CA 7
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
December 10, 2012
2012-Ohio-5956
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.; Hon. John W. Wise, J.; Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10 CR 497. Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded.
For Plaintiff-Appellee
GREGG MARX
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
JOCELYN S. KELLY
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
239 West Main Street
Suite 101
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
For Defendant-Appellant
RUSSELL S. BENSING
1370 Ontario Street
1350 Standard Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
BRADLEY KOFFEL
THE KOFFEL LAW FIRM
1801 Watermark Drive, Suite 350
Columbus, Ohio 43215
{¶1} Appellant Darl R. Reynolds, Sr., aka Rick Reynolds, appeals his multiple-count drug trafficking conviction and sentence in the Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} On December 17, 2010, the Fairfield County Grand Jury indicted appellant on seven counts of drug trafficking under
{¶3} Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to an amended indictment charging him with seven counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs,
{¶4} The trial court, via a judgment entry filed February 3, 2012, sentenced appellant to twelve months of imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively, with credit for two days previously served. Five of the sentences were suspended for a term of community control, to begin upon completion of the remaining prison terms.
{¶5} On February 10, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the following two Assignments of Error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY SENTENCING DEFENDANT TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT MAKING FINDINGS AT THE TIME OF THE SENTENCING HEARING, AND WITHOUT GIVING REASONS FOR THE FINDINGS IN THE JOURNAL ENTRY OF SENTENCING, AS REQUIRED BY
{¶7} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE DRIVERS LICENSE SUSPENSIONS UNDER
I.
{¶8} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences without making proper findings and reasons under
{¶9} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124, 2008–Ohio–4912, a plurality opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court established a two-step procedure for reviewing a felony sentence. The first step is to “examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. The second step requires the trial court‘s decision be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.
{¶11} “(C)(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds 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 if the court also finds any of the following:
{¶12} “(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
{¶13} “(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.
{¶14} “(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
{¶16} The judgment entry of sentencing in the case sub judice reads in pertinent part as follows:
{¶17} “The Court ordered that said sentences are to be served consecutively to each other. The Court found on record that it did consider all the law required to be considered regarding the imposition of consecutive sentencing, and accordingly found consecutive sentencing is appropriate in the present case. This included consideration of
{¶18} Judgment Entry, February 3, 2012, at 4-5.
{¶19} Upon review, we hold the trial court adequately made the findings, in the sentencing entry, required by
{¶20} Appellant‘s First Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
II.
{¶21} In his Second Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive drivers license suspensions (six months for each of the seven counts) under
{¶22}
{¶23} Clearly, a driver‘s license suspension serves several legislative goals, including being “an effective means to protect other drivers and passengers on the roads and to deter future drug use and punish offenders.” See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 558, 561, 664 N.E.2d 926. However, it is well-established that the sentencing provisions set forth in the Revised Code are to be strictly construed against the State and liberally construed in favor of the accused. See, e.g., State v. Fanti, 147 Ohio App.3d 27, 30, 768 N.E.2d 718, 2001-Ohio-7028;
{¶24} We note the Second District Court of Appeals, addressing this same issue in State v. Phinizee, Clark App.No. 95-CA-54, 1996 WL 391722, concluded that while consecutive sentences of imprisonment are expressly provided for in
{¶25} Appellant‘s Second Assignment of Error is therefore sustained.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Edwards, J., concur.
JUDGES
JWW/d 1031
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Ohio, is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Costs to be split between the parties.
JUDGES