State v. Wright , 2013 Ohio 3132 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-3132.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98901
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ELLERY WRIGHT
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-562045 and CR-562963
BEFORE: Stewart, A.J., S. Gallagher, J., and Keough, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 18, 2013
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Michael P. Maloney
24441 Detroit Road, Suite 300
Westlake, OH 44145
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Matthew E. Meyer
Christopher D. Schroeder
Assistant County Prosecutors
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, A.J.:
{¶1} On May 8, 2012, defendant-appellant Ellery Wright pled guilty to one count
of drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony. The trial court
convicted Wright and sentenced him to 12 months of community control sanctions and 25
hours of community service. Additionally, Wright’s driver’s license was temporarily
suspended, he was ordered to attend drug treatment programs, and also ordered to obtain
a General Education Development (GED) diploma.
{¶2} In a separate case, Wright again pled guilty to one count of theft in violation
of R.C. 2913.01(A)(3), also a fifth-degree felony. On June 5, 2012, Wright was
convicted of the offense, sentenced to 18 months of community control sanctions, and
ordered to pay $3,500 in restitution.
{¶3} On August 10, 2012, Wright appeared in court for a hearing for violating the
conditions of his community control sanctions. Wright had tested positive for
phencyclidine (“PCP”) and cocaine on two separate occasions. Wright also failed to
appear for the court-ordered drug treatment programs, attend Alcoholics Anonymous
meetings, or make any effort to obtain his GED. The trial court found Wright to be in
violation of his probation in both cases and sentenced him to the maximum of 12 months
incarceration in each case. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.
{¶4} On appeal, Wright’s sole assignment of error is that the court erred in
ordering maximum consecutive sentences. However, we find Wright’s assignment of
error to be without merit because the record reflects the trial court’s imposition of
maximum consecutive sentences was proper.
{¶5} On September 30, 2011, H.B. 86 became effective, which revived the
requirement that trial courts make certain findings before imposing consecutive sentences
for felony convictions. State v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 98371, 2013-Ohio-489, ¶ 17.
Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court must first find that the imposition of
consecutive sentences is “necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish
the offender.” Id. Secondly, the trial court must find “consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public.” Id. Lastly, the trial court must find that at least one of the
following factors 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.{¶6} In this case, the court satisfied all three parts of the analysis. At the
sentencing hearing, the court made the following statement:
Court: The court finds in this matter that this defendant does have an
extensive criminal history, that he hasn’t benefitted from prior
attempts at rehabilitation, nor has he learned from prior
sentences in this matter. The court finds that in this case
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and
punish this offender * * *.
{¶7} In addition to finding that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the
public and to punish Wright for his offenses, at pages 21 and 22 of the transcript, the
court acknowledged that this type of sentence was not disproportionate given the
seriousness of Wright’s conduct. The court noted the danger Wright posed to his own
family. Wright has young children, and his history of drug use could potentially lead to
tragic events. Lastly, the record reflects that Wright was on probation when the
subsequent offenses were committed. Wright had been given the opportunity to avoid
prison by participating in drug treatment and education programs. However, he did not
do so and, instead, continued to abuse drugs.
{¶8} Wright actually argues that while the trial court made findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4), the sentencing transcript shows the court made no meaningful analysis of
those findings. However, Wright’s argument misinterprets the requirements placed on
the trial court under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentencing purposes.
{¶9} In State v. Venes, 8th Dist. No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891, this court recognized
that R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) does not place a heavy burden on a trial judge to make the
necessary findings before imposing consecutive sentences. Id. at 16. In fact, unlike the
requirement in the prior version of the statute, the trial court does not have to justify its
findings by giving reasons for making those findings. Id. See also State v. Goins, 8th
Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263. Because the record reflects that the trial court made
the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), its duty for imposing consecutive sentences was
fulfilled.
{¶10} 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, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR