State v. Batiste ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Batiste, 2021-Ohio-4014.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 110294
v. :
TAIWAN BATISTE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 10, 2021
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-19-636866-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Alaina Hagans, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Allison S. Breneman, for appellant.
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:
Defendant-appellant, Taiwan Batiste, appeals his sentence. He raises
one assignment of error for our review:
The trial court abused its discretion by imposing a maximum prison
sentence contrary to R.C. 2929.14 and the purposes and principles of
felony sentencing guidelines.
Finding no merit to the assignment of error, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
I. Procedural History and Factual Background
This is the second time that Batiste has appealed his sentence. As we
explained in State v. Batiste, 2020-Ohio-3673, 154 N.E.3d 1220, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.), the
underlying charges stem from January 2018. Batiste first broke into and stole
property from a vehicle parked near the Beachland Ballroom and Tavern in
Cleveland. Id. He then approached two females who were walking to their vehicle
after attending an event at Beachland. Id. He approached them from behind while
wearing a ski mask and dark clothing. Id. He told them, “‘[d]on’t look back or I’ll
shoot.’” Id. He took from them a purse, a cell phone, and a backpack. Id. He
threatened the victims by telling them, “I have a gun. I’m going to shoot you. Don’t
turn around.” Id. The victims told law enforcement that he fled in a dark-colored
vehicle. Id. Forty minutes later, law enforcement located Batiste in a vehicle
matching the description, and a purse belonging to one of the victims was on the
front seat. Id. at ¶ 4. They searched Batiste and found one of the victim’s driver’s
license and debit card. Id.
Batiste pleaded guilty to an amended indictment of two counts of
robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), second-degree felonies, one with a one-
year firearm specification; two counts of abduction in violation of
R.C. 2905.02(A)(2), third-degree felonies; and two counts of theft in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), fifth-degree felonies. The trial court sentenced Batiste to a
cumulative prison term of 24 years. This court found that the record did not support
the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences, vacated the sentences, and
remanded for resentencing. Id. at ¶ 27.
On remand, the trial court held a resentencing hearing. One of the
victims spoke to share how Batiste’s crime has affected her life. She explained that
she did not speak at Batiste’s original sentencing because she “was really scared,”
and that “it took a lot” for her to decide to speak at the resentencing hearing. The
victim said that she and the other victim, her friend, had attended an event at
Beachland and were walking from the venue to their car. She explained that Batiste
and “a man in an SUV” were “waiting on a side street” and “ambushed” her and her
friend as they turned around a corner. She said that Batiste “took everything” that
they had and left “thinking that they had stranded” the victims. She explained that
“luckily,” her friend had her car key on a lanyard around her neck that Batiste did
not see, so they were able to drive to a gas station to call the police. She stated that
the police found their belongings by tracking their phones. She explained that
Batiste and the other male used her credit card “at a wing place” and then withdrew
$200 in cash from Walgreens. She said she was not able to pay rent until she “was
able to get that money back.”
The victim explained that she and her friend think about the crime
“all the time” and that it has affected them “a lot.” She said that she “can’t leave the
house without thinking about it.” She stated that she did not “want anybody else to
have to carry this around and be scared to leave their house,” to “go and do things,”
and to walk to their car.
The trial court sentenced Batiste to a total sentence of nine years in
prison and a total fine of $1,500: for the first count of robbery, $250 and eight years,
plus one year for the firearm specification; for the second count of robbery, $250
and eight years; for each count of abduction, $250 and three years; and for each
count of theft, $250 and one year. The trial court ordered the sentences to run
concurrently. The trial court stated that Batiste will be subject to three years of
mandatory postrelease control and explained the consequences if he were to violate
the terms of postrelease control.
Batiste timely appealed.
II. Law and Analysis
In his sole assignment of error, Batiste argues that the trial court
abused its discretion when it imposed the maximum prison sentence. He maintains
that there is “no basis” for the maximum sentence because he had no previous felony
convictions as an adult, he took responsibility for his conduct, he did not injure
anyone, and “a gun was not found and allegedly not used.” He contends that his
sentence is therefore excessive and disproportionate to his crime.
“An appellate court must conduct a meaningful review of the trial
court’s sentencing decision.” State v. McHugh, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108372,
2020-Ohio-1024, ¶ 11. For felony sentences, an “appellate court’s standard for
review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.”
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Instead, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that appellate courts
“may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if the
reviewing court “clearly and convincingly” finds that (a) “the record does not
support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D),
2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or R.C. 2929.20(I) — statutory provisions that are not at
issue here — or that (b) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
“In Ohio, sentences are presumed to run concurrent to one another
unless the trial court makes the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” State
v. Gohagan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107948, 2019-Ohio-4070, ¶ 28.
When sentencing a defendant, the court must consider the purposes
and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Hodges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99511,
2013-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7. Batiste challenges the trial court’s findings under both
R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
R.C. 2929.11(A) states that when sentencing an offender for a felony,
the trial court shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which
are (1) “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others,” (2) “to
punish the offender,” and (3) “to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender
using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes
without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.”
To achieve these purposes, “the sentencing court shall consider the need for
incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime,
rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the
public, or both.” Id.R.C. 2929.11(B) requires trial courts to impose sentences that “shall
be reasonably calculated to achieve the three overriding purposes of felony
sentencing[.]” The sentences must also be “commensurate with and not demeaning
to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim” and be
“consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.”
R.C. 2929.12 sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that the court
must consider in relation to the seriousness of the underlying crime and likelihood
of recidivism, including “(1) the physical, psychological, and economic harm
suffered by the victim, (2) the defendant’s prior criminal record, (3) whether the
defendant shows any remorse, and (4) any other relevant factors.” State v.
Kronenberg, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101403, 2015-Ohio-1020, ¶ 26, citing
R.C. 2929.12(B) and (D). The trial court must also consider factors tending to show
that the “offender’s conduct is less serious than conduct normally constituting the
offense.” R.C. 2929.12(C).
Trial courts do not need to make factual findings on the record
pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 before imposing a sentence within the statutory
range of an offense, as long as the trial court “considers” the statutory factors. State
v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, paragraphs one and
two of the syllabus; McHugh, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108372, 2020-Ohio-1024, at
¶ 17; State v. Cooke, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108824, 2020-Ohio-2725, ¶ 55-60.
“Consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows
otherwise.” State v. Seith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104510, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12.
“This court has consistently recognized that a trial court’s statement in the journal
entry that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to
fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Kronenberg at ¶ 27.
Here, the trial court sentenced Batiste to eight years for each of the
two counts of robbery, second-degree felonies; three years for each of the two counts
of abduction, third-degree felonies; and one year for each of the two counts of theft,
fifth-degree felonies. These sentences were within the statutory ranges.
R.C. 2929.14(A). The trial court’s resentencing judgment entry also states that the
court “considered all required factors of the law” and that “prison is consistent with
the purpose of R.C. 2929.11.”
Batiste argues that there is no basis in the record to support his
sentence, and he highlights facts in the record to maintain that his sentence is
contrary to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. We cannot reach the merits of this argument.
See State v. Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110253, 2021-Ohio-3679, ¶ 15; State v.
Levinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110281, 2021-Ohio-3601, ¶ 21. But even if we
could, we would find no error. While wearing a ski mask and announcing that he
had a gun, Batiste “ambushed” two females, took all their belongings, threatened to
shoot them, meant to leave them stranded, and spent their money. Batiste argues
that he did not actually have a gun, but the victims did not know that, and he
threatened to shoot them if they turned around. Even though he did not physically
injure the victims, he caused them extreme psychological harm. One of the victims
explained that she and the other victim think about the crime “all the time” and that
they are afraid to leave their homes. We clearly and convincingly find that the record
supports the sentence that the trial court imposed.
Accordingly, we overrule Batiste’s sole assignment of error.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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
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.
MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR