State v. Cerrato ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Cerrato, 2024-Ohio-1735.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HENRY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 7-23-14
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
AUDILI CERRATO, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 22 CR 0032
Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: May 6, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Jeffrey P. Nunnari for Appellant
Gwen Howe-Gebers for Appellee
Case No. 7-23-14
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Audili Cerrato (“Cerrato”), appeals the July 27,
2023 judgment entry of sentence of the Henry County Court of Common Pleas. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
{¶2} The genesis of this case involves the March 13, 2022 death of S.P., an
adult with special needs. S.P. died while in the care of Cerrato, who had been S.P.’s
caretaker for nearly seven months prior to S.P.’s death.
{¶3} On March 31, 2022, the Henry County Grand Jury indicted Cerrato on
Count One of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), (D), and 2929.02(B), an
unspecified felony, and Count Two of felonious assault in violation of R.C.
2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), a second-degree felony. The indictment included
forfeiture specifications as to both counts. On April 5, 2022, Cerrato appeared for
arraignment and entered pleas of not guilty.
{¶4} On June 9, 2023, Cerrato withdrew her pleas of not guilty and entered
guilty pleas under a negotiated-plea agreement to an (amended) Count One, Count
Two, and the forfeiture specifications. In exchange for her change of pleas, the State
agreed to amend Count One to involuntary manslaughter in violation of R.C.
2903.04(A), a first-degree felony, and agreed to a joint-sentencing recommendation.
The trial court accepted Cerrato’s guilty pleas, found her guilty, ordered the property
identified in the forfeiture specifications forfeited, and ordered a pre-sentence
investigation.
-2-
Case No. 7-23-14
{¶5} On July 26, 2023, the trial court sentenced Cerrato (based on the joint-
sentencing recommendation of the parties) to a minimum term of 10 years in prison
to a maximum term of 15 years in prison on Count One and to a minimum term of
5 years in prison to a maximum term of 7 1/2 years in prison on Count Two.1 (Doc.
No. 85). The trial court ordered Cerrato to serve the prison terms consecutively for
an aggregate sentence of a minimum term of 15 years in prison to a maximum term
of 22 1/2 years in prison.2
{¶6} On August 15, 2023, Cerrato filed her notice of appeal. She raises two
assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
Appellant’s Aggregate Sentence Is Contrary To Law.
{¶7} In her first assignment of error, Cerrato challenges the prison sentence
imposed by the trial court. Specifically, Cerrato argues that her sentence is contrary
to law because the aggregate maximum term of 22 1/2 years imposed by the trial
court exceeds maximum term that the trial court was authorized to impose.
Standard of Review
{¶8} R.C. 2953.08(A) provides specific grounds for a defendant to appeal a
sentence. State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St .3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 10. Under R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it determines by
1
The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on July 27, 2023.
2
On August 9, 2023, the trial court filed a nunc pro tunc judgment entry of sentence to correct a clerical
error.
-3-
Case No. 7-23-14
clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s
findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing
evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief
or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v.
Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
Analysis
{¶9} However, under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), “[a] sentence imposed upon a
defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by
law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case,
and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” “[A] sentence is ‘authorized by law’ and is
not appealable within the meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) only if it comports with
all sentencing provisions.” Underwood at ¶ 20. “[W]hen a sentence fails to include
a mandatory provision, it may be appealed because such a sentence is ‘contrary to
law’ and is also not ‘authorized by law.’” Id. at ¶ 21.
{¶10} Here, only Cerrato’s aggregate sentence of a minimum term of 15
years in prison was jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the trial
court. In other words, Cerrato asserts that her sentence is reviewable on appeal
because she did not agree to the aggregate maximum term of 22 1/2 years in prison
that was imposed by the trial court. Based on our review of the record, we agree
that Cerrato’s sentence is not authorized by law and is contrary to law.
-4-
Case No. 7-23-14
{¶11} Ohio’s current sentencing scheme (commonly known as the “Reagan
Tokes Law”), “‘significantly altered the sentencing structure for many of Ohio’s
most serious felonies’ by implementing an indefinite sentencing system for non-life,
first and second-degree felonies committed on or after its effective date.” State v.
Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2022-Ohio-2072, ¶ 5, quoting State v.
Polley, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-19-039, 2020-Ohio-3213, ¶ 5, fn. 1. Specifically,
“[t]he Law specifies that the indefinite prison terms will consist of a minimum term,
selected by the sentencing judge from a range of terms set forth in R.C. 2929.14(A),
and a maximum term determined by formulas set forth in R.C. 2929.144.” Id.{¶12} R.C. 2929.144 provides, in its relevant part:
(B) The court imposing a prison term on an offender under division
(A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for a
qualifying felony of the first or second degree shall determine the
maximum prison term that is part of the sentence in accordance with
the following:
***
(2) If the offender is being sentenced for more than one felony, if one
or more of the felonies is a qualifying felony of the first or second
degree, and if the court orders that some or all of the prison terms
imposed are to be served consecutively, the court shall add all of the
minimum terms imposed on the offender under division (A)(1)(a) or
(2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code for a qualifying felony
of the first or second degree that are to be served consecutively and
all of the definite terms of the felonies that are not qualifying felonies
of the first or second degree that are to be served consecutively, and
the maximum term shall be equal to the total of those terms so added
by the court plus fifty per cent of the longest minimum term or definite
term for the most serious felony being sentenced.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.144(B)(2).
-5-
Case No. 7-23-14
{¶13} Imperatively, “‘trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence
within the statutory range.’” State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-15-17, 2015-
Ohio-4225, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Noble, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-06, 2014-Ohio-
5485, ¶ 9. Thus, in this case, involuntary manslaughter, as a first-degree felony,
carries an indefinite sanction of 3-years to 11-years of imprisonment, and felonious
assault, as a second-degree felony, carries an indefinite sanction of 2-years to 8-
years of imprisonment. R.C. 2903.04(A), (C), 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a),
2929.14(A)(1)(a), (A)(1)(b). See also R.C. 2929.144(B). At first glance, because
the trial court sentenced Cerrato to a minimum term of 10 years in prison to a
maximum term of 15 years in prison on Count One and minimum term of 5 years
in prison to a maximum term of 7 1/2 years in prison on Count Two, the trial court’s
sentence falls within the statutory range and is appropriately calculated.
{¶14} However, notwithstanding that calculation, the trial court ordered
Cerrato to serve the prison terms consecutively for an aggregate sentence of a
minimum term of 15 years in prison to a maximum term of 22 1/2 years in prison.
In its consecutive-sentence calculation, even though the trial court appropriately
calculated Cerrato’s aggregate minimum prison term, the trial court miscalculated
Cerrato’s aggregate maximum prison term. Accord State v. Hinze, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 29290, 2022-Ohio-2602, ¶ 16; State v. Norris, 2d Dist. Greene
No. 2023-CA-8, 2023-Ohio-4057, ¶ 8.
-6-
Case No. 7-23-14
{¶15} Importantly,
when imposing consecutive sentences on Reagan Tokes qualifying
offenses * * * “the court shall add all of the minimum terms imposed
on the offender * * * and the maximum term shall be equal to the total
of those terms so added by the court plus fifty percent of the longest
minimum term * * * for the most serious felony being sentenced.”
State v. Stutz, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29521, 2023-Ohio-1082, ¶ 30, quoting R.C.
2929.144(B)(2). “In other words, when running qualifying offenses consecutively,
the court must [begin by] add[ing] the minimum terms of the Reagan Tokes
qualifying offenses.” Id. Here, the trial court appropriately computed Cerrato’s
aggregate minimum term by adding the minimum term of 10 years to the minimum
term of 5 years to reach a total aggregate minimum term of 15 years. Then, to
appropriately tally the aggregate maximum term, the trial court is required to “add
50 [percent] of the minimum for the most serious [offense] being sentenced” to its
aggregate minimum term computation. Id. In this case, 50 percent of 10 years is 5
years. Consequently, the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment that the trial
court could impose under the statute is 20 years—that is, 10 years + 5 years + 5
years = 20 years. Accord id. Thus, the trial court’s imposition of a maximum term
of 22 1/2 years in prison is not authorized by law and is contrary to law. Accord id.See also Hinze at ¶ 16. Therefore, because Cerrato’s sentence is not authorized by
law and is contrary to law, we remand the case for the limited purpose of
resentencing.
{¶16} Cerrato’s first assignment of error is sustained.
-7-
Case No. 7-23-14
Second Assignment of Error
Appellant Was Denied The Effective Assistance of Counsel
{¶17} In her second assignment of error, Cerrato argues that her trial counsel
was ineffective. In particular, she argues that her trial counsel was ineffective for
conceding “with the prosecutor that the offenses did not merge for sentencing” and
for failing “to object to the court’s sentences.” (Appellant’s Brief at 11).
Standard of Review
{¶18} A defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must
establish: (1) the counsel’s performance was deficient or unreasonable under the
circumstances; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. State v.
Kole, 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 (2001), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In order to show counsel’s conduct was deficient or
unreasonable, the defendant must overcome the presumption that counsel provided
competent representation and must show that counsel’s actions were not trial
strategies prompted by reasonable professional judgment. Strickland at 687.
Counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that all decisions fall within the wide
range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675
(1998). Tactical or strategic trial decisions, even if unsuccessful, do not generally
constitute ineffective assistance. State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558 (1995).
Rather, the errors complained of must amount to a substantial violation of counsel’s
essential duties to his client. See State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St. 3d 136, 141-142
-8-
Case No. 7-23-14
(1989), quoting State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 396 (1976), vacated in part on
other grounds, 438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3135 (1978).
{¶19} “Prejudice results when ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.’” State v. Liles, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-04, 2014-Ohio-259, ¶ 48, quoting
Bradley at 142, citing Strickland at 691. “‘A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” Id., quoting Bradley at 142
and citing Strickland at 694.
Analysis
{¶20} First, Cerrato argues that her trial counsel was ineffective for
conceding that that her involuntary-manslaughter and felonious-assault convictions
are not allied offenses of similar import.
{¶21} R.C. 2941.25, Ohio’s multiple-count statute, states:
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to
constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the
indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses,
but the defendant may be convicted of only one.
(B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses
of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more
offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a
separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain
counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of
all of them.
{¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio directs us to apply a three-part test to
determine whether a defendant can be convicted of multiple offenses:
-9-
Case No. 7-23-14
As a practical matter, when determining whether offenses are allied
offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25, courts
must ask three questions when defendant’s conduct supports multiple
offenses: (1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance?
(2) Were they committed separately? and (3) Were they committed
with separate animus or motivation? An affirmative answer to any of
the above will permit separate convictions. The conduct, the animus,
and the import must all be considered.
State v. Earley, 145 Ohio St.3d 281, 2015-Ohio-4615, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Ruff,
143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 12 and Ruff at paragraphs one, two, and three
of the syllabus.
{¶23} “As explained in Ruff, offenses are of dissimilar import ‘when the
defendant’s conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the harm
that results from each offense is separate and identifiable.’” State v. Bailey, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-140129, 2015-Ohio-2997, ¶ 77, quoting Ruff at paragraph two of
the syllabus. “At its heart, the allied-offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of
a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on the defendant’s conduct. The evidence at
trial * * * will reveal whether the offenses have similar import.” Ruff at ¶ 26. “[A]
defendant’s conduct that constitutes two or more offenses against a single victim
can support multiple convictions if the harm that results from each offense is
separate and identifiable from the harm of the other offense.” Id.{¶24} “The term ‘animus’ means ‘“purpose or, more properly, immediate
motive.”’” State v. Ramey, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-127, 2015-Ohio-5389, ¶
70, quoting State v. Grissom, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25750, 2014-Ohio-857, ¶
40, quoting State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126, 131 (1979). “‘Where an individual’s
-10-
Case No. 7-23-14
immediate motive involves the commission of one offense, but in the course of
committing that crime he must * * * commit another, then he may well possess but
a single animus, and in that event may be convicted of only one crime.’” Id., quoting
Logan at 131.
{¶25} “‘Like all mental states, animus is often difficult to prove directly, but
must be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.’” Id. at ¶ 71, quoting Logan
at 131. “‘Thus the manner in which a defendant engages in a course of conduct may
indicate distinct purposes.’” Id., quoting State v. Whipple, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
C-110184, 2012-Ohio-2938, ¶ 38. “‘Courts should consider what facts appear in
the record that “distinguish the circumstances or draw a line of distinction that
enables a trier of fact to reasonably conclude separate and distinct crimes were
committed.”’” Id., quoting Whipple at ¶ 38, quoting State v. Glenn, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 94425, 2012-Ohio-1530, ¶ 9.
{¶26} Generally, whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import is a
question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Stall, 3d Dist. Crawford
No. 3-10-12, 2011-Ohio-5733, ¶ 15. “De novo review is independent, without
deference to the lower court’s decision.” State v. Hudson, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-
12-38, 2013-Ohio-647, ¶ 27.
{¶27} However, a defendant’s failure to preserve the issue of merger at the
time of sentencing, forfeits all but plain error on review. State v. Bailey, 171 Ohio
St.3d 486, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 7. “Under Crim.R. 52, ‘[p]lain errors or defects
-11-
Case No. 7-23-14
affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the
attention of the court.’” State v. Shockey, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29170, 2019-Ohio-
2417, ¶ 7, quoting Crim.R. 52(B). “Plain error exists only where there is a deviation
from a legal rule, that is obvious, and that affected the appellant’s substantial rights
to the extent that it affected the outcome of the trial.” Id. See also Bailey at ¶ 9
(“The elements of the plain-error doctrine are conjunctive: all three must apply to
justify an appellate court’s intervention.”). “We recognize plain error ‘“with the
utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest
miscarriage of justice.”’” State v. Howard, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-10-50, 2011-
Ohio-3524, ¶ 83, quoting State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 110 (1990), quoting
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶28} Here, Cerrato’s trial counsel was not ineffective for stipulating that her
involuntary-manslaughter and felonious-assault convictions are not allied offenses
of similar import because the offenses were committed separately. Accord State v.
Carner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109914, 2021-Ohio-2312, ¶ 32 (“Because the
conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately, defense counsel was
not ineffective for failing to request merger.”). Stated another way, the record
reveals that the State did not rely on the same conduct to support both offenses. See
State v. Wilson, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 13CA3542, 2015-Ohio-2016, ¶ 74 (concluding
that offenses “are not allied offenses of similar import when the state did not rely
upon the same conduct to prove both offenses”).
-12-
Case No. 7-23-14
{¶29} Specifically, the State alleged that the conduct constituting the
felonious-assault offense stemmed from acts of physical “abuse being committed
by [Cerrato] prior to” the victim’s death and that the conduct constituting the
involuntary manslaughter stemmed from “malnutrition ending this victims [sic] life
* * * .” (July 26, 2023 Tr. at 4). That is, the State alleged that the conduct
constituting the felonious-assault offense occurred from “April 2021 until the last
day of the victims [sic] life” and that the coroner’s report reflects injuries including
“blisters on or about the victim’s body”; “wounds on or about her body consistent
with a rod that was located in the back of [Cerrato’s] vehicle”; that “the nasal bone
of the victim was fractured, there were bite marks, some with scabbing on or about
the victim’s body, there were * * * lacerations on the ear”; and “lots of deep tissue
scarring on or about the victim’s body * * * .” (Id. at 3-4). Consequently, the State
presented evidence reflecting that the felonious-assault and involuntary-
manslaughter offenses were committed separately. Thus, Cerrato cannot
demonstrate that her trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating that her felonious-
assault and involuntary-manslaughter convictions are not allied offenses of similar
import.
{¶30} Secondly, Cerrato contends that her trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to the “lengthier sentence than that provided for by law.”
(Appellant’s Brief at 11). However, based on our resolution of Cerrato’s first
assignment of error, Cerrato’s argument is moot and we decline to address it. See
-13-
Case No. 7-23-14
State v. Panning, 3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-13-07, 2014-Ohio-1880, ¶ 18
(concluding that Panning’s argument that “he received ineffective assistance of
counsel when his attorney failed to object to both the sentence and sex offender
classification” was rendered moot based on this court’s decision reversing the trial
court’s imposition of consecutive sentences). See also App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
{¶31} Accordingly, to the extent that we addressed it, Cerrato’s second
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶32} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued in assignment of error two, in part, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court imposing a sentence for each count. However, having
found error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued
in assignment of error one, we reverse the judgment of the trial court regarding the
calculation of the sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Judgment Affirmed in Part,
Reversed in Part,
and Cause Remanded
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
/hls
-14-