State v. Robinson , 2017 Ohio 634 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2017-Ohio-634.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2016-06-051
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 2/21/2017
- vs -
:
WILLIE J. ROBINSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 16CR31715
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice
Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for plaintiff-appellee
Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., P.O. Box 231, Harveysburg, OH 45032, for defendant-appellant
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Willie Robinson, appeals the sentence he received in the
Warren County Court of Common Pleas after he was found guilty of theft.
{¶ 2} Appellant was indicted in March 2016 on one count of theft in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth degree. The state alleged that appellant and an
accomplice entered the River's Bend Wine & Spirits liquor store on January 25, 2016, and
while appellant distracted the store clerk, the accomplice went in the office and stole money
Warren CA2016-06-051
from the safe. Appellant subsequently pled guilty as charged. The trial court held a
sentencing hearing during which appellant, defense counsel, and the state addressed the
court. On June 8, 2016, the trial court sentenced appellant to 12 months in prison and
ordered him to pay $1,228.89 in restitution to River's Bend Wine & Spirits.
{¶ 3} Appellant now appeals, raising three assignments of error.
{¶ 4} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO PAY
RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,228.89.
{¶ 6} Appellant argues the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $1,228.89 in
restitution to the liquor store because no evidence was presented during the sentencing
hearing as to the amount of restitution, and "more importantly," the trial court never
mentioned restitution during the sentencing hearing as required under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).
{¶ 7} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides in pertinent part that:
[T]he court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony
may sentence the offender to any financial sanction or
combination of financial sanctions authorized under this section[.]
Financial sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to this section
include * * * [r]estitution by the offender to the victim of the
offender's crime * * * in an amount based on the victim's
economic loss. If the court imposes restitution, the court shall
order that the restitution be made to the victim in open court, to
the adult probation department that serves the county on behalf
of the victim, to the clerk of courts, or to another agency
designated by the court.
{¶ 8} A review of the sentencing hearing transcript reveals that the trial court failed to
inform appellant in open court that he was required to pay restitution, and in fact, restitution
was never mentioned, yet the court imposed a restitution order of $1,229.89 in its June 8,
2016 sentencing entry. Where a trial court fails to inform a defendant in open court that he or
she is required to pay restitution as required under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), an appellate court will
reverse the restitution order and remand for the trial court to address the matter in open court
-2-
Warren CA2016-06-051
as required by law. State v. Veto, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98770, 2013-Ohio-1797, ¶ 18
(reversing a restitution order and remanding for a hearing when the trial court ordered
restitution in the sentencing entry, but not at the sentencing hearing); State v. McDowell, 9th
Dist. Summit No. 26697, 2014-Ohio-3900, ¶ 10.
{¶ 9} Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 11} THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT ORDERED WILLIE
ROBINSON TO PAY RESTITUTION AND IMPOSED A FINANCIAL SANCTION UNDER
R.C. 2929.18 WITHOUT CONSIDERING HIS PRESENT AND FUTURE ABILITY TO PAY.
{¶ 12} Appellant challenges the restitution order, arguing the trial court failed to
consider his present and future ability to pay in violation of R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). However, this
assignment of error is moot given our resolution of the first assignment of error. Veto, 2013-
Ohio-1797 at ¶ 20; App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE PRINCIPLES
OF SENTENCING AND RECIDIVISM OF THE OFFENDER IN SENTENCING MR.
ROBINSON TO THE MAXIMUM OF 12 MONTHS IN PRISON.
{¶ 15} Appellant argues the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum term of
12 months in prison. Appellant asserts his sentence is contrary to law because the trial court
failed to address the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12 during the
sentencing hearing.
{¶ 16} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth
in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and
convincingly contrary to law. State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-
Ohio-4822, ¶ 8. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence
-3-
Warren CA2016-06-051
only if, by clear and convincing evidence, "the record does not support the trial court's
findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v.
Harp, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-12-096, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶ 7. A sentence is not
clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and
principles of sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11, as well as the seriousness and
recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, and sentences a defendant within the permissible
statutory range. State v. Brandenburg, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-10-201 and CA2014-
10-202, 2016-Ohio-4918, ¶ 9.
{¶ 17} After a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the trial court's
decision to sentence appellant to the maximum 12-month prison term. As the record plainly
reveals, appellant's sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the trial
court properly considered the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors
listed in R.C. 2929.12, imposed the required optional three-year postrelease control term,
and sentenced appellant within the permissible statutory range for a fifth-degree felony in
accordance with R.C. 2929.14(A)(5).
{¶ 18} "The fact that the trial court did not expressly cite to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12
during the sentencing hearing is immaterial, considering [the court] specifically cited to both
statutes within its sentencing entry." Julious, 2016-Ohio-4822 at ¶ 11. In its sentencing
entry, the trial court specifically stated that it "considered the record, oral statements, any
victim impact statement and presentence report prepared, as well as the principles and
purposes of sentencing under [R.C.] 2929.11," and "balanced the seriousness and recidivism
factors under [R.C.] 2929.12." Moreover, we note that during the sentencing hearing, the trial
court referenced information in the presentence investigation report, appellant's extensive
criminal history, and his recidivism risks. Thus, based on the record, it is clear the trial court
properly considered the seriousness and recidivism factors as required by R.C. 2929.12.
-4-
Warren CA2016-06-051
See Brandenburg, 2016-Ohio-4918.
{¶ 19} The record further supports the trial court's sentencing decision. Given the fact
that appellant has a lengthy criminal history involving 38 convictions for robbery, theft,
burglary, and safecracking, 14 of which followed the same modus operandi as the case at
bar, and the fact that the only time appellant, who is now 69 years old, has refrained from
engaging in criminal activity was when he was incarcerated, the record supports the trial
court's determination that the 12-month prison term is commensurate with the seriousness of
appellant's conduct, necessary to punish appellant, and necessary to protect the public from
future crime by appellant.
{¶ 20} Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 21} Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part solely as to the restitution order, and
remanded for a hearing on the issue of restitution.
S. POWELL, P.J. and RINGLAND, J., concur.
-5-