State v. TaylorState v. Taylor
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Gregory Taylor, appeals the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him of one count of trafficking in cocaine in violation of
I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On May 3, 2018, the Wood County Grаnd Jury entered a three-count indictment against appellant, charging him with one count of trafficking in cocaine in violation of
{¶ 3} On October 30, 2018, appellant entered into a plea agreement with the state whereby he agreed to plead guilty to the count of trafficking in cocaine and the count of possessing criminal tools. In return, the state agreed to drop the forfeiture specification and dismiss the count of possession of cocaine. After conduсting a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the trial court accepted appellant‘s plea and found him guilty. The trial court continued the matter for preparation of a presentence investigation report.
{¶ 4} At the sentencing hearing on Dеcember 18, 2018, appellant‘s trial counsel advocated for community control sanctions. Counsel noted that appellant has a job in Monroe, Michigan, and is in an aftercare program through the Lucas County Correctional Treаtment Facility (“CTF“). Counsel stated that appellant has put in a lot of effort through CTF, has recognized his drug problem, and is a different person because of it.
{¶ 6} Appellant then spoke on his own behalf. Appellant admitted that at the time of the offense he was using cocaine and marijuana, and his mind was not right because of it. Appellant explained that the CTF program has helped him grеatly, and that he is now working and attending AA meetings. Appellant accepted that he has made bad decisions in his past, but states that his life is now on the right path, and he just wants the opportunity to continue on that path.
{¶ 7} Upon hearing the arguments in mitigation, the trial court recounted the circumstances of the offense wherein appellant fled from the police and was not forthright with them when he was apprehended. The trial court then examined appellant‘s lengthy criminal history, which spanned approximately 20 years, beginning when appellant was a juvenile, and which included several commitments to the Department of Youth Services, and multiple prison terms for receiving stolen property, failure to comply, escape, felonious assault, and attempted carrying a concealed weapon. Ultimately, the court ordered appellant to serve 12 months in prison on each count, and ordered the sentences to be served cоnsecutively for a total prison term of 24 months.
{¶ 8} In announcing its sentence, the trial court stated that it considered the principles and purposes of sentencing, as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors. The court also made the requisite findings that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish appellant, and that consecutive
{¶ 9} On December 19, 2018, the trial court journalized the judgment entry memorializing appellant‘s conviction and sentence.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 10} Appellant has timely appealed the trial court‘s December 19, 2018 judgment, and now asserts one assignment of error for our rеview:
- The trial court did not comply with
R.C. 2929.11 andR.C. 2929.12 in sentencing appellant to a maximum consecutive term of twenty-four months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections instead of ordering community control sanctions.
III. Analysis
{¶ 11} In his appeal, appellant argues that his totаl prison term of 24 months is contrary to the principles and purposes of
{¶ 12} On appeal, a plurality of the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Fifth District. The lead opinion in Gwynne recognized that
{¶ 13} The divide between the lead and concurring opinions in Gwynne revolved, in part, around whether it was ever appropriate for an appellate court to review a trial court‘s application of
We note that some sentences do not require the findings that
R.C. 2953.08(G) specifically addresses. Nevertheless, it is fully consistent for appellate courts to review those sentences that are imposed solely after consideration of the factors inR.C. 2929.11 and2929.12 under a standard that is equally deferential to the sentencing court. That is, an appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence.
The lead opinion in Gwynne simply found that the quoted portion of Marcum did not apply to the case before it because Marcum involved the appeal of a non-maximum sentence for a single count. Gwynne at ¶ 15. The lead opinion recognized that
{¶ 14} In light of these decisions, we come to the fоllowing conclusions regarding the standard by which we review felony sentences. Where the appellant challenges the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences, we are bound to review the issue under
{¶ 15} Where the appellant challenges the length of a particular term, regardless if that term is ordered to run concurrently or consecutively to other sentences, we must first determine if the trial court was required to make findings under
{¶ 16} Applying those guidelines here, we do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court‘s findings relative to its imposition of consecutive sentences.
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 thе 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 сommitted 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.
Here, appellant‘s lengthy and pervasive criminal history supports the trial court‘s conclusiоn that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime, and are not disproportionate to the danger that appellant poses to the public.
{¶ 17} Likewise, we find that the trial court did not err in imposing a 12-month prison term on each count. In support of his assignment of error, appellant does not argue that the trial court failed to make required findings, that it did not consider
{¶ 18} Further, applying the standard in Marcum, we also find that appellant has not demonstrated through clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court‘s imposition of 12-month terms upon consideration of
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 20} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice has been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J. CONCUR.
JUDGE
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/.