State v. TravisState v. Travis
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 21, 2021
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Allison Cupach, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Thomas A. Rein, for appellant.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:
{1} Defendant-appellant Latrale Nelson Travis (“Travis“) appeals from the order imposing consecutive sentences for burglary and felonious assault. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{3} Travis appeals his sentence, raising the following assignment of error for our review:
I. The trial court erred by ordering Appellant to serve a consecutive sentence without making the appropriate findings required by
R.C. 2929.14 and HB 86.
Further facts will be discussed under the assignment of error.
{4} In his sole assignment of error, Travis contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences because it failed to make the requisite statutory findings.
{5} There are two ways a defendant can challenge consecutive sentences on appeal. State v. Tidmore, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107369, 2019-Ohio-1529, ¶ 15; State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102449, 2016-Ohio-1536, ¶ 7. First, the defendant can argue that consecutive sentences are contrary to law because the trial court failed to make the findings required by
- 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. - 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.
- The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{7}
{8} To make the requisite findings under the statute, “the [trial] court must note that it engaged in the analysis’ and that it ‘has considered the statutory criteria and specifie[d] which of the given bases warrants its decision.‘” Id. at ¶ 26,
{9} Travis contends that the trial court did not make the appropriate findings to justify a consecutive sentence. Although the trial court was required to make only one of the three findings in
[t]here are two victims that were assaulted by the defendant in June of 2018. Both of those victims were strangers to the defendant and the defendant was a stranger to them. Both of the victims were engaging in normal adult life behavior and not anticipating becoming victims of a violent offense. These incidents happened closely related in time, I think maybe 25 minutes apart.
{10} And, under
{11} An appellate court “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence” or it “may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that “the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings” under
{12} Travis does not argue that the record does not support consecutive sentences; thus, he has waived all but plain error on review. Moreover, our review of the transcript shows that his sentence is supported by the record. Travis, who has a lengthy criminal record and was on postrelease control when he committed the crimes in this case, brutally attacked two women who were strangers to him and in unrelated incidents that occurred less than 30 minutes apart. The trial court made all the requisite statutory findings and incorporated those findings into its journal entry.
{13} In light of the above, the sole assignment of error is overruled.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR