State v. Collins , 2021 Ohio 4133 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Collins, 2021-Ohio-4133.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 110289
v. :
JERRELL COLLINS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 18, 2021
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-20-649787-A and CR-20-652049-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Nora Bryan, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
Michael V. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defender, for
appellant.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:
Defendant-appellant, Jerrell Collins (“Collins”), appeals his
consecutive prison sentence after entering guilty pleas in two separate cases. For
the reasons set forth below, we affirm Collins’ sentence.
Procedural and Factual History
On December 15, 202o, pursuant to an agreement with the state,
Collins entered guilty pleas to amended indictments in two separate cases. In the
first case, CR-20-649787, Collins entered guilty pleas to one count each of attempted
felonious assault, disrupting public services, and domestic violence. In the second
case, CR-20-652049, Collins entered guilty pleas to one count each of felonious
assault and having weapons while under disability. As part of the plea agreement,
Collins entered a guilty plea to a notice of prior conviction. The trial court referred
Collins to the probation department for the preparation of a presentence
investigation report.
On January 14, 2021, Collins appeared for sentencing. At that time,
the trial court sentenced Collins to concurrent prison terms of 36 months for
attempted felonious assault, 18 months for disrupting public service, and six months
for domestic violence in case CR-20-649787. In addition, the trial court sentenced
Collins to concurrent prison terms of six years for felonious assault and 36 months
for having weapons while under disability in case CR-20-652049. Further, the trial
court ordered Collins to serve the sentences imposed in the two separate cases
consecutive to each other for a total of nine years in prison.
Collins now appeals and assigns the following sole error for review:
Assignment of Error One
The trial court’s consecutive sentencing of Mr. Collins was clearly and
convincingly not supported by the record where the severity of
Mr. Collins current charges and past charges do not require consecutive
sentences.
Law and Analysis
In the sole assignment of error, Collins argues his sentence is contrary
to law because the record does not support the imposition of a consecutive sentence.
We review felony sentences under the standard of review set forth in
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St. 3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59
N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 9. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase,
reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate a sentence and remand for
resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that 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 2929.20(I), or 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. Reindl, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109807, 2021-Ohio-2586, ¶ 14, citing State v.
Gohagan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107948, 2019-Ohio-4070, ¶ 28.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), provides that the trial court can impose
consecutive sentences if it finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect
the public from future crime or to punish the offender, that such sentences would
not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public, and that one of the following applies:
(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.
Id.Collins can challenge the consecutive sentence in two ways. First, he
can argue that consecutive sentences are contrary to law because the court failed to
make the necessary findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Wagner, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109678, 2021-Ohio-3107, ¶ 9, citing State v. Johnson, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 102449, 2016-Ohio-1536, ¶ 7; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); State v. Nia,
2014-Ohio-2527, 15 N.E.3d 892, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). Second, he can argue that the
record does not support the findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Id.; R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(a). Nia at ¶ 16.
In this matter, Collins does not claim the trial court failed to make the
statutorily mandated findings. Rather, Collins claims the record does not support
the findings.
In making the consecutive findings, a trial court is not required to give
reasons supporting its decision to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Bonnell,
140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 27. Rather, “as long as the
reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis and
can determine that the record contains evidence to support the findings, consecutive
sentences should be upheld.” Id. at ¶ 29.
Our review of the transcript indicates that the trial court engaged in
the proper analysis, as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and the record contains
evidence to support the trial court’s findings.
Initially, at the sentencing hearing, defense counsel advised the court
that Collins understood that prison was mandatory because Collins had pleaded
guilty to the notice of prior conviction. Defense counsel asked the trial court to
consider imposing a minimum term or close to a minimum sentence as possible. In
support of the request, defense counsel noted Collins’ history of mental health and
a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, having witnessed an older brother’s
murder in 2012.
Defense counsel also noted Collins’ history of substance abuse and
indicated that fentanyl, cocaine, and marijuana abuse were major factors in the
crimes committed in both cases. Speaking on his own behalf, Collins took full
responsibility for his actions, expressed remorse, and stated: “that night I was on so
many drugs and alcohol.”
The state emphasized Collins’ prior history of violent acts and
deferred to the court’s discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence. The state
highlighted that both cases involved shootings where, fortunately, nobody was
killed. In the first case, on December 21, 2019, Collins entered the bedroom of his
girlfriend, C.D., who was asleep, and fired a live round into the mattress next to
C.D.’s body. C.D. fled the home, with Collins in pursuit. Collins dragged C.D. back
to the home, by her hair, while threatening C.D. with the gun and calling her a
“retarded handicapped bitch.”
In the second case, on May 26, 2020, the victim, M.D., was exiting a
Savemore Mart, when he observed Collins sitting in the back seat of a white GMC
truck. At the time M.D. noticed that Collins was staring at him in a menacing
manner. When M.D. inquired why Collins was looking at him so threateningly,
Collins pointed a silver gun at him and stated: “get yo out of her.” [Sic.] As M.D.
turned to walk away, Collins discharged the firearm, striking M.D. in the heel. The
white GMC then sped away.
Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court referenced a letter from
Collins’ sister, written on behalf of the entire family, who stated that “[Collins’]
criminal history was nothing to be proud of,” but suggested Collins might benefit
from drug treatment. The trial court followed by stating:
This history, omitting the Juvenile Court cases, which were numerous
and quite violent in their form as well, I don’t see any time when the
actions by this defendant were changed even though he did receive
some treatment. He said he did engage in certain program. It doesn’t
appear that he learned anything from them.
***
He has numerous burglary cases, kidnapping, felonious assault, guns,
having weapons while under disability, drug trafficking. I am going to
pass over the traffic offenses. Felonious assault, the domestic violence,
felonious assault that is in front of this court.
After detailing the litany of offenses in Collins’ criminal history, the
trial court made the findings that it was imposing consecutive sentences “to protect
the public from future crime, and that [consecutive sentences are] not
disproportionate to the seriousness of [Collins’] conduct, and the danger [Collins
poses] to the public through [his] numerous arrests.” R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial
court also found that Collins was under a sanction for a prior offense when at least
one of the cases was committed. In addition to making the finding under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(a), the trial court also found, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), that
consecutive sentences were necessary based on Collins’ criminal history.
For all the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court complied with
the statute for imposing consecutive sentences and engaged in the proper analysis.
Upon review, we find that the record clearly and convincingly supports the trial
court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Therefore, we affirm the consecutive
sentences imposed by the trial court.
Accordingly, we overrule the 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.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR