State v. Broderson

[Cite as State v. Broderson, 2016-Ohio-5839.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 103724
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
DORIAN BRODERSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-15-595318-B
BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., Laster Mays, J., and Celebrezze, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 15, 2016
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Thomas A. Rein
820 West Superior Avenue
Suite 800
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Ryan J. Bokoch
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
1200 Ontario Street
9th Floor, Justice Center
Cleveland, OH 44113
TIM McCORMACK, P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Dorian Broderson appeals from a judgment of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that sentenced him to 29 years in prison for his
role in a string of armed robberies that spanned several northeast Ohio communities
during the spring of 2015.
{¶2} During the robbery spree, Broderson and six other defendants targeted
businesses such as convenience stores, gas stations, and other retailers during business
hours. The businesses robbed included Verizon Wireless, McDonald’s, Game Stop,
Auto Zone, Marco’s Pizza, Dairy Mart, Convenient Food Mart, Shell Gas Station, Star
Value, and United Dairy Farmers. Broderson was involved in 11 of the 18 robberies.
{¶3} The grand jury returned a 105-count indictment against Broderson and his
codefendants, charging them with aggravated robberies, kidnappings, and other felonies.
Subsequently, Broderson pleaded guilty to 69 counts, including 15 counts of aggravated
robbery and 40 counts of kidnapping, all with a three-year firearm specification.
{¶4} The trial court merged some of the kidnapping counts into the aggravated
robbery counts and sentenced Broderson to seven years each on two aggravated robberies
and nine years on a third aggravated robbery. These three terms are consecutive to one
another but concurrent with the terms on the remaining counts. The court also sentenced
him to two, three-year prison terms on two of the firearm specifications, to be served
consecutively to each other but concurrent with the three-year terms on the remaining gun
specifications. Broderson was sentenced to a total of 29 years.
{¶5} On appeal, Broderson raises one assignment of error. It states: “The trial
court erred by ordering appellant to serve a consecutive sentence without making the
appropriate findings required by R.C. 2929.14 and HB86.”
{¶6} H.B. 86 revived a presumption of concurrent sentences; prison sentences
are to be served concurrently and consecutive sentences can be imposed only if the trial
court makes the required findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Bonnell, 140
Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 20-22; State v. Trotter, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 100617, 2014-Ohio-3588, ¶ 18.
{¶7} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states:
If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of
multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison
terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender
and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of
the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,
and if the court also finds any of the following:
(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.
{¶8} Compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires the trial court to make the
statutory findings at the sentencing hearing. Here, the trial court made the following
findings:
[M]ultiple prison terms are imposed upon this offender for
convictions of multiple offenses. I am going to require, of course, that you
serve prison terms consecutively because I am finding that consecutive
service is necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish
this offender, and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger that this offender
poses to the public. And also that defendant — the offender committed
one or more of these offenses while on, of course, post-release control or
parole for a first degree felony assault on a police officer. Additionally, at
least two of these multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more
courses of conduct, and that 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, and finally,
that the offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to both protect the public from future
crime by this offender and to punish this offender.