STATE OF OHIO v. ANTONIO RICE
No. 102443
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
September 24, 2015
2015-Ohio-3885
Boyle, J., Keough, P.J., and Laster Mays, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-14-589427-A
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 24, 2015
Richard Agopian
1415 West Ninth Street
2nd Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Anthony Thomas Miranda
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Antonio Rice, appeals his sentence, arguing that “[t]he trial court did not have authority to impose a consecutive sentence with another case.”
{¶2} Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History and Facts
{¶3} In December 2014, Rice pleaded guilty to an amended indictment of four fifth-degree felonies: two counts of breaking and entering, in violation of
{¶4} Following his guilty plea, Rice elected to proceed directly to sentencing. The trial court heard from Richmond Heights Detective Sergeant Porter and the prosecutor, both of whom urged the trial court to impose any sentence consecutive to the other one-year sentence that Rice recently received. The prosecutor detailed Rice‘s criminal record and the fact that two homes were involved in the underlying charges. Conversely, defense counsel urged the trial court to run any sentence concurrently to the one-year sentence that Rice received in Judge Carolyn Friedland‘s courtroom on similar charges. Rice also addressed the court, apologizing for his actions and indicating the potential of a job waiting for him after he completed his prison term already imposed by Judge Friedland.
{¶6} Rice now appeals his sentence, raising a single assignment of error.
Standard of Review
{¶7} When reviewing the imposition of consecutive sentences,
Multiple Offenses
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Rice argues that the trial court did not have authority to impose a consecutive sentence to the prison term already imposed by another judge in an earlier case. We disagree.
{¶9} Although a general presumption exists for the imposition of concurrent sentences,
Except as provided in division (B) of this section, division (C) of section 2929.14, or division (D) or (E) of section 2971.03 of the Revised Code, a prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently with any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of this state, another state, or the United States.
{¶10}
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:
(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.
{¶12} We find no merit to Rice‘s sole assignment of error and overrule it.
{¶13} We note, however, that the trial court failed to incorporate in the journal entry the statutory findings supporting consecutive sentences that it made at sentencing. Thus, this matter is remanded to the trial court for the court to issue a new sentencing journal entry, nunc pro tunc, to incorporate its findings. See Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d
{¶14} Judgment affirmed and case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the 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.
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR