State v. ThompsonState v. Thompson
Decided: September 16, 2024
Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490 (For Plaintiff Appellee).
Christina Brueck, 333 Babbitt Road, Suite 301, Euclid, OH 44123 (For Defendant Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Ralph R. Thompson (“Mr. Thompson“), appeals the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas that sentenced him to a total term of imprisonment of 47-months after a jury found him guilty of receiving stolen property, possession of cocaine, and two counts of failure to comply with an order or a signal of a police officer.
{¶2} Mr. Thompson raises one assignment of error on appeal, contending the trial court committed reversible and plain error by imposing sentence without making the required findings pursuant to
{¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Thompson‘s assignment of error to be without merit. Although not required, the trial court explicitly reviewed the seriousness/recidivism factors pursuant to
{¶4} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶5} In December 2023, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Thompson on seven counts: (1) receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of
{¶6} Mr. Thompson pleaded not guilty at his arraignment and the case proceeded to a jury trial on counts one through four.
{¶7} The State introduced testimony and evidence that revealed Mr. Thompson stole a vehicle outside of a convenience store in Euclid, Ohio. The owner of the vehicle had left it running directly outside the store while he went inside for a few items. When he discovered his car was missing, the owner asked the store clerk to call 911 and reported it stolen. Because the car was equipped with GPS, the Euclid Police, with the help of the car dealer, were able to locate the vehicle in Willowick, Ohio. The Willowick Police attempted to stop the vehicle, but the driver evaded the police blockade and led them in a chase. The driver, later identified as Mr. Thompson, was unable to maintain his high speed as he rounded a curve, and he crashed the vehicle into a utility pole.
{¶8} The police ordered Mr. Thompson to step out of the vehicle, however, he continued to attempt to move the now three-wheeled vehicle. Eventually, Mr. Thompson was arrested and transported to the Lake County Jail where a search revealed his sock contained a small bag of cocaine. The police also found a pipe typically used for drugs, a razor blade, and “a ton” of bundles of dollars wrapped around coins that were taped together with painter‘s masking tape.
{¶9} The jury returned a guilty verdict on all four counts.
{¶10} The case proceeded to a sentencing hearing, at which the trial court found counts two and three, failure to comply with an order or a signal of a police officer, were allied offenses, and following the State‘s election, merged count two into count three.
{¶11} The court heard from the State, defense counsel, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Thompson‘s sister. The court also reviewed the presentence investigation and report, as well as the sentencing factors set forth in
{¶12} As relevant to this appeal, the court explicitly reviewed the sentencing factors pursuant to
{¶13} In reviewing the recidivism factors, the court found “all of them present,” noting Mr. Thompson has a lengthy criminal history spanning over 40 years, he was in prison on seven different occasions for seven different crimes, and he violated his probation multiple times. He engaged in the same behavior and carried out similar offenses each time he was released from prison. Further, he committed these offenses while out on bond in multiple jurisdictions, with outstanding warrants for failure to appear in those jurisdictions, as well as a suspended driver‘s license. In addition, he showed no genuine remorse. The court found no factors present that indicated recidivism less likely.
{¶14} The court sentenced Mr. Thompson to 17 months in prison on count one, receiving stolen property; 30 months on count three, failure to comply with an order or a signal of a police officer; and six months in prison on count four, possession of cocaine. The trial court ordered the sentences imposed on counts one and four to be served concurrent with each other, and, pursuant to statute, consecutive to the sentence imposed on count three, for a total 47-month term of imprisonment.
{¶15} Mr. Thompson raises one assignment of error for our review:
{¶16} “The trial court committed reversible and plain error by imposing sentence without making the proper findings required by
Standard of Review
{¶17} In his assignment of error, Mr. Thompson contends the trial court erred by failing to consider all the seriousness/recidivism factors contained in
{¶18} We apply the standard of review for felony sentences, which is governed by
{¶19} “The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
{¶20} “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court‘s standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
{¶21} “(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
{¶22} “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
{¶23} “‘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
{¶24} The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, clarified that contrary to the “dicta” in Marcum,
{¶25} While Mr. Thompson contends Marcum should not be totally excluded from an analysis of whether the trial court properly considered the factors of
{¶26} Thus, following precedent,
R.C. 2929.12
{¶27}
{¶28}
{¶29} At the outset we note the trial court possesses broad discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing within the statutory guidelines. State v. Phifer, 2020-Ohio-4694, ¶ 52;
{¶30} In this case, the trial court explicitly stated it reviewed the
{¶31} Contrary to Mr. Thompson‘s argument, the seriousness/recidivism factors contained in
{¶32} Most fundamentally, “the competing factors in
{¶33} Mr. Thompson‘s assignment of error is without merit.
{¶34} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,
concur.