State v. Mathis ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Mathis, 2022-Ohio-4020.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-21-1249
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202002568
v.
Robert Mathis DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: November 10, 2022
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Autumn D. Adams, for appellant.
*****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Mathis, appeals the December 8, 2021 judgment of the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to 24 months in prison. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background and Facts
{¶ 2} In December 2020, Mathis and four codefendants were indicted on five
counts of aggravated riot in violation of R.C. 2917.02(A)(2) and (B)(2), each a third-
degree felony. Two of the codefendants were also charged with two counts of first-
degree misdemeanor assault apiece.
{¶ 3} Mathis and the state reached an agreement under which Mathis would plead
guilty to one count of aggravated riot in exchange for the state dismissing the remaining
charges against him at sentencing and recommending that the sentence be served
concurrently with the sentence Mathis was serving in a 2017 case. The trial court
explained to Mathis that “[t]he court is not bound by [the state’s] recommendation and
will sentence [Mathis] as it sees fit.” Mathis said that he understood.
{¶ 4} After conducting a thorough plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Mathis’s
plea and found him guilty of aggravated riot. The court ordered a presentence
investigation report (“PSI”) and scheduled the matter for sentencing.
{¶ 5} At the sentencing hearing, by way of mitigation, Mathis’s attorney explained
that Mathis’s conviction stemmed from
a situation in the jail which originally involved three different
detainees. It was [Mathis’s] impression that the correction officers were
sort of blaming or going after the incorrect party and intervened.
Thankfully there were no serious injuries for these officers. * * * [In the
2.
PSI, Mathis] took responsibility. He offered his apology. * * * He
recognized he should have not intervened.
Counsel also requested that the court impose the sentence in this case concurrently with
the sentence that Mathis was serving in the 2017 case.
{¶ 6} Before imposing sentence, the trial court reviewed some pertinent
information from Mathis’s PSI:
[Mathis] is before this court facing sentencing on his ninth adult
felony conviction. He has 21 adult misdemeanor convictions. An [Ohio
Risk Assessment System] assessment determined that [Mathis] does pose a
high risk of reoffending. Should be noted that [Mathis] has an extensive
criminal history and history of violent behavior including convictions for
both domestic violence and involuntary manslaughter. Due to [Mathis’s]
participation in this jailhouse riot multiple correction officers were injured.
The court did take that into consideration when fashioning an appropriate
sentence in this matter.
The court then sentenced Mathis to 24 months in prison for the aggravated riot
conviction.
{¶ 7} The court ordered that Mathis serve this prison term consecutively to the
sentence that he was serving in the 2017 case. To support its imposition of consecutive
sentences, the trial court determined that
3.
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime
or to punish [Mathis] and not disproportionate to the seriousness of
[Mathis’s] conduct or the danger [Mathis] poses to the public. The court
further finds [Mathis] was awaiting trial or sentencing and that specifically
[Mathis] was in custody in [the 2017 case] when this offense was
committed. And that [Mathis’s] criminal history requires consecutive
sentences.
{¶ 8} In its December 8, 2021 sentencing entry, the trial court repeated its reasons
for imposing a consecutive sentence:
The Court finds that the consecutive sentence is necessary to protect
the public from future crime or to punish [Mathis], and not disproportionate
to the seriousness of [Mathis’s] conduct or the danger [Mathis] poses, the
Court further finds the offense [Mathis] was in custody in [the 2017 case]
when this offense was committed and [Mathis’s] criminal history requires
consecutive sentences [sic].
{¶ 9} Mathis now appeals, raising one assignment of error:
The Trial Court abused its discretion in sentencing Mathis to
consecutive sentences when his conduct, compared with his co-defendants,
was not as serious and those co-defendant’s [sic] received concurrent
sentences[.]
4.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 10} In his assignment of error, Mathis argues that the record does not support
the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. He contends that the court
improperly ordered him to serve his sentence in this case consecutively to the sentence in
the 2017 case because his involvement in the jail fight that led to the aggravated riot
charges “was less serious than his co-defendants [sic]. Imposing consecutive sentences
to him and him alone was disproportionate when compared with his conduct.”
{¶ 11} The state responds that (1) the trial court made all of the findings required
by R.C. 2929.14(C) on the record and in its sentencing entry; (2) Mathis was charged
with the same felonies as all of his codefendants; (3) the record does not contain any
factual information about Mathis’s or his codefendants’ conduct during the jail fight, so
there is no way to know who was more—or less—culpable for the fight; and (4) the
record does not contain any information about the codefendants’ criminal histories, but
does contain Mathis’s extensive criminal history, which the trial court relied on as part of
its basis for imposing the consecutive sentence.
{¶ 12} We review sentencing challenges under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The statute
allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence or vacate
the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing only if it clearly and convincingly
finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings
under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of
5.
section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,
whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
{¶ 13} Because Mathis challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive
sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) applies. To modify or vacate
consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we must clearly and convincingly
find that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4).
{¶ 14} Before imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court is required to make
three findings: (1) consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender * * *;” (2) imposition of consecutive sentences is not
“disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public * * *;” and (3) one of the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) to
(c) applies. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-493,
108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 252. As relevant here, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) and (c) permit the trial
court to impose consecutive sentences if the defendant committed at least one of the
offenses while he was awaiting trial or sentencing, under felony community control
sanctions, or on postrelease control; or the defendant’s criminal history shows that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the
defendant.
6.
{¶ 15} A sentencing court must make its findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the
sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140
Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus. The trial court is not required
to state the reasons behind its findings, however. Id.{¶ 16} The trial court made all three findings at both the sentencing hearing and in
the judgment entry. It found that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the
public or to punish Mathis, consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of Mathis’s conduct or to the danger that he poses to the public, and both
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) and (c) applied.
{¶ 17} On appeal, Mathis claims that consecutive sentences are not supported by
the record because his “conduct in this prison fight was less serious than * * *” his
codefendants’ conduct, the consecutive sentences “cannot be explained by [Mathis’s]
conduct during the riot[,]” and he “was less culpable and caused less harm to the
deputies.” We disagree with Mathis for two reasons.
{¶ 18} First, the record simply does not contain sufficient information for us to
clearly and convincingly find that the imposition of consecutive sentences is
disproportionate to the seriousness of Mathis’s conduct. The state did not provide any
factual information about the offense at either the plea or sentencing hearing, the
explanation of the fight in the PSI is short and lacks details, and none of the factual
information from any of the codefendants’ cases is in the portions of the record that are
7.
before us in this appeal. Without more information, we cannot make the factual
determination that Mathis is asking us to make.
{¶ 19} Second, to the extent that Mathis is arguing that his behavior during the jail
fight was less egregious than his codefendants’, the “proportionality analysis [required by
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)] ‘does not occur in a vacuum, but, instead, focuses upon the
defendant’s current conduct and whether this conduct, in conjunction with the
defendant’s past conduct, allows a finding that consecutive service is not
disproportionate.’” (Emphasis added.) State v. Kelly, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-8,
2021-Ohio-325, ¶ 80, quoting State v. Crim, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-38, 2018-Ohio-
4996, ¶ 11. Mathis’s “‘current conduct’” that the trial court had to consider was his
involvement in some capacity—albeit apparently not as one of the primary aggressors—
in a jail fight that involved four other inmates and injured three deputies. When the court
looked at the fight combined with Mathis’s past violent conduct—including convictions
of domestic violence and involuntary manslaughter, among many other criminal
convictions—the court concluded that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to
the seriousness of Mathis’s conduct and the danger he poses to the public. Based on this
information, we cannot say that the trial court’s proportionality analysis is clearly and
convincingly unsupported by the record.
{¶ 20} Because the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)
and Mathis has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court’s
8.
findings are not supported by the record, we find that the trial court properly imposed
consecutive sentences. Mathis’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 21} Based on the foregoing, the December 8, 2021 judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Mathis is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
____________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
9.