State v. WaddingState v. Wadding
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shain Wadding, appeals the March 12, 2021 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas which, following his guilty plea to two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor,
{¶ 2} Appellant was indicted on January 16, 2019, on four counts of rape, first-degree felonies, one count of gross sexual imposition, a third-degree felony, one count of attempted gross sexual imposition, a fifth-degree felony, and one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, a fourth-degree felony. On June 24, 2020, the disseminating matter harmful to juveniles count was dismissed by the state.
{¶ 3} On December 15, 2020, appellant entered guilty pleas to two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with minor, third-degree felonies, and the remaining counts were dismissed. Appellant was sentenced to a consecutive sentence of seven years of imprisonment; this appeal followed with appellant raising the following assignment of error:
1. The trial court erred by sentencing appellant to consecutive prison terms.
{¶ 4} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error asserts that the court failed to make the findings necessary prior to imposing consecutive prison sentences. We note that our standard of review of a consecutive, felony sentence is whether the appellant has identified clear and convincing evidence in the record that the trial court‘s findings are not supported by the record. State v. Kiefer, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-21-005, 2021-Ohio-3059, ¶ 8;
(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.
{¶ 7} Appellant‘s sentencing hearing was held on March 9, 2021. Imposing two forty-two month sentences and ordering them to be served consecutively, the court stated: “I‘m ordering the terms to be run consecutive and, um, based upon the harm and – that was done on behalf of each victim, and I – I find that consecutive terms are appropriate in this case.”
{¶ 8} In the March 12, 2021 sentencing judgment entry, with regard to the consecutive sentences the court found, under
that the imposition of consecutive sentences is appropriate because a) to protect the public from future crimes and to punish the offender; b) the sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant‘s conduct; c) the multiple offenses committed were so great and 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 defendant‘s conduct and; d) due to defendant‘s history of criminal conduct.
Judgment reversed.
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
Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
JUDGE
CONCUR.
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/.