State v. RodriguezState v. Rodriguez
Brian A. Smith for Appellant
Steven M. Powell for Appellee
{1} Defendant-appellant Stefanie Rodriguez (“Rodriguez“), also known as Stefanie Disbennett, appeals the judgments of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences contrary to law. For the reasons set forth below, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{2} On March 12, 2019, Rodriguez was indicted on one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of
{3} On September 27, 2019, Rodriguez appeared before the trial court for sentencing. Sentencing Tr. 1. The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to seven years
{4} The appellant filed her notices of appeal on October 28, 2019. Doc. A60, B27. On appeal, Rodriguez raises the following assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error
Because the record, as shown by clear and convincing evidence, does not support the trial court‘s finding under
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) , pursuant toR.C. 2953.08(G)(2) , the trial court‘s sentence of Appellant in case number 2018 CR 0282 was not supported by the record.2
Second Assignment of Error
Because the trial court did not state the required findings under
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences until after those sentences were imposed, the trial court‘s sentence was contrary to law.
First Assignment of Error
{5} Rodriguez asserts that the imposition of consecutive sentences was not necessary to punish the offender and was not necessary to protect the public.
{6}
(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:
(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 , or2929.18 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} “Under
Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.
State v. Taflinger, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-17-20, 2018-Ohio-456, ¶ 12, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118, paragraph three of the syllabus (1954).
Legal Analysis
{8} In these cases, the trial court found that the imposition of consecutive sentences was necessary to protect the public from future crime and was not disproportionate to the offenses committed. Sentencing Tr. 21. See
{9} The record indicates that Rodriguez committed the offense that formed the basis of Case No. 2019-CR-265 twenty days after she was released on bond for the offense that formed the basis of Case No. 2019-CR-118. Sentencing Tr. 18. Thus,
{10} Further, the trial court cited several facts in the process of finding that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future harm given Rodriguez‘s criminal history. The trial court noted that Rodriguez was found in possession of over one hundred grams of heroin within one thousand feet of a school. Sentencing Tr. 19. Plea Hearing Tr. 5. The trial court stated that
Most of the people that I see are either possessing or selling small amounts. * * * [T]hose folks are usually in a different category, and many—on many occasions, it‘s their motivation to sell, so they can buy and they can use, because they have an addiction problem. * * * [T]he sale of this quantity of drugs would indicate that there were other motivations involved, and those concern me * * *
Sentencing Tr. 19. The trial court also noted that Rodriguez had also served fifty-seven months in prison in another state for a “substantial drug offense.” Id. at 20. The trial court concluded that
engaging in such conduct on three separate times, in such a substantial way, to me indicates that—that you have decided that the money, the risks that are involved, outweighs the potential punishment that * * * you might have to serve.
Id. at 22. The facts recited by the trial court indicate that the evidence in the record supports the trial court‘s finding under
{11} After examining this evidence, we cannot conclude that Rodriguez has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the imposition of consecutive sentences in this case is unsupported by the record. For this reason, Rodriguez‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{12} Rodriguez argues that the trial court erred in that it did not make the required
{13} In applying
When imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must state the required findings as part of the sentencing hearing, and by doing so it affords notice to the offender and to defense counsel. See Crim.R. 32(A)(4). And because a court speaks through its journal, State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-1533, 863 N.E.2d 1024, ¶ 47, the court should also incorporate its statutory findings into the sentencing entry. However, a word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute is not required, and as 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.
Bonnell, supra, at ¶ 29. “A failure to make the findings required by
Legal Analysis
{14} At the sentencing hearing in this case, the trial court ordered a prison sentence of seven years for Case No. 2019-CR-118; ordered a prison sentence of two years for Case No. 2019-CR-265; and then ordered these prison sentences to be served consecutively. Sentencing Tr. 20, 21, 22. Rodriguez argues that the trial court, at the sentencing hearing, should have made the required findings under
{15} The wording of
{16} After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court scrupulously followed the requirements of
{17} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgments of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
PRESTON and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/hls