STATE OF OHIO v. RAE QUON WILLIAMS
No. 100488
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
July 17, 2014
[Cite as State v. Williams, 2014-Ohio-3138.]
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. CR-13-574173, CR-13-574251, and CR-13-574971
BEFORE: Stewart, J., Boyle, A.J., and Celebrezze, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 17, 2014
Michael P. Maloney
24441 Detroit Road, Suite 300
Westlake, OH 44145
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Maxwell M. Martin
Margaret A. Troia
Assistant County Prosecutors
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 9th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Rae Quon Williams pleaded guilty to charges in three separate cases, was convicted, and sentenced. The court ordered him to serve two of the three sentences consecutively. Williams‘s sole complaint on appeal is that the court failed to make the findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences.
{¶2} Williams pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in Cuyahoga C.P. CR-13-574173; one count of robbery in CR-13-574251; and one count of felonious assault in CR-13-574971. The court sentenced Williams to serve 30 months on each of the robbery counts and 18 months on the felonious assault count. It further ordered that Williams serve the felonious assault count concurrently with the robbery counts, but that he serve the robbery counts consecutively for a total sentence of 60 months.
{¶3}
(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
(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶4} There are two ways that a defendant can challenge consecutive sentences on appeal. First, the defendant can argue that consecutive sentences are contrary to law because the court failed to make the necessary findings required by
{¶5} Beginning with the findings necessary under
I am imposing a consecutive prison term because I find that a consecutive prison term is necessary to protect the community and punish you. It‘s not disproportional, and I find that the harm was so great or unusual that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct, that being that you now have in front of me three cases, all that were committed within a very short time period.
Two of those are robberies, felonies of the third degree where random individuals were robbed at gunpoint. You were an active participant in those robberies which I find to be extremely serious, and I find that your criminal history I already put on the record being that you already had an aggravated robbery from 2009, you were given the opportunity to have a
community control sanction, probation, you violated it on a number of occasions and that you finally ended up going to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, so I find your criminal history being that you already have an aggravated robbery then when you came out you picked up additional cases, shows that a consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public.
Tr. 34-35.
{¶6} The court separately and distinctly made all the findings required by
{¶7} Williams claims that the court‘s findings “reveal[ ] little or no basis for consecutive sentences.” We take this assertion to be an argument that the court‘s findings were not supported by the record.
{¶8} A reviewing court can increase, reduce, modify, or remand consecutive sentences for resentencing only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the court‘s findings to impose consecutive sentences under
{¶9} We have no basis for finding that the record does not support the court‘s findings under
{¶10} Williams argues that there were factors militating against consecutive sentences: he was not on parole or community control at the time of the offenses; his
{¶11} The difficulty with Williams‘s argument is that the factors he cites in mitigation of sentence were essentially the findings that the court made when imposing consecutive sentences. For example, while it is true that Williams was not on parole or community control at the time he committed the offenses, he had previously been convicted of crimes and had twice violated his probation as a juvenile. In addition, his claim that he did not hold the weapon used in the robberies and felonious assault does nothing to detract from the seriousness of his conduct in participating in armed robberies of random victims.
{¶12} In any event, Williams cannot prevail on an argument that the court abused its discretion by failing to give sufficient weight to factors in mitigation of sentence.
{¶13} This is not a case where the court claimed to rely on a fact that the record on appeal shows to be demonstrably wrong — for example, attributing to the defendant a prior conviction that does not exist. In that case, the court‘s findings would be clearly erroneous. On the record before us, we cannot say that the court‘s findings under
{¶14} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR