State v. Taylor

[Cite as State v. Taylor, 2019-Ohio-4719.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SENECA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-19-21
v.
TYRONE L. TAYLOR, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-19-22
v.
TYRONE L. TAYLOR, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeals from Seneca County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. 18 CR 0266 and 19 CR 0049
Judgment Affirmed in Case No. 13-19-21 and
Appeal Dismissed in Case No. 13-19-22
Date of Decision: November 18, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Brian A. Smith for Appellant
Stephanie J. Kizer for Appellee
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Tyrone L. Taylor (“Taylor”), brings these appeals
from the May 29, 2019, judgments of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court
sentencing him to an aggregate nine-year prison term after Taylor pled guilty to
Aggravated Burglary with a firearm specification in violation of R.C.
2911.11(A)(2), a felony of the first degree, Having Weapons While Under
Disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree and
Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle in violation of R.C. 2913.03(A), a first degree
misdemeanor. The Aggravated Burglary and Having Weapons While Under
Disability convictions stemmed from trial court case 18CR0266, and the
Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle conviction stemmed from trial court case
19CR0049. The cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal. On appeal, Taylor
argues that his nine-year prison term was not supported by the record.
Background
{¶2} On December 7, 2018, Taylor was indicted in trial court case 18CR0266
(corresponding to appellate number 13-19-21) for Aggravated Burglary in violation
of R.C. 2911.11(A)(2), a felony of the first degree and Having Weapons While
Under Disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree.
The Aggravated Burglary charge contained a firearm specification pursuant to R.C.
2941.145 alleging that Taylor had a firearm on or about his person or under his
-2-
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
control, and that he displayed, brandished, or used it to facilitate the offense. More
specifically, it was alleged that on or about November 3, 2018, Taylor and multiple
accomplices trespassed into an occupied structure and robbed a man at gunpoint of
$400 and some marijuana. Taylor was the individual wielding the firearm. Taylor
originally pled not guilty to the charges.
{¶3} On March 6, 2019, Taylor was indicted in trial court case 2019CR0049
(corresponding to appellate case number 13-19-22) for Grand Theft of a Motor
vehicle in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree. It was
alleged that on or about June 22, 2018, Taylor, with purpose to deprive the owner
of a 2001 Pontiac Sunfire, did knowingly obtain or exert control over the vehicle
without consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent. Taylor originally
pled not guilty to this charge as well.
{¶4} Pretrial hearings were held on both cases on March 14, 2019, and March
21, 2019. Trial was scheduled on case 18CR0266 for April 22, 2019, and trial for
the newer indictment was set for June 24-25, 2019.
{¶5} On April 22, 2019, the day of the first scheduled trial, the parties
informed the trial court that a plea agreement had been reached with respect to the
18CR0266 case. Taylor agreed to plead guilty to the charges as indicted, including
accepting the firearm specification attached to the Aggravated Burglary charge. The
parties further agreed to an open sentencing hearing to advocate their positions. The
-3-
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Taylor and determined that Taylor
was entering his pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The trial court
accepted the pleas and found him guilty of Aggravated Burglary and Having
Weapons While Under Disability.
{¶6} On May 28, 2019, the 18CR0266 case proceeded to sentencing.
However, at that time, the parties indicated that a negotiated plea agreement had
been reached regarding the 19CR0049 case. Taylor agreed to plead guilty to the
lesser-included offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle in violation of R.C.
2913.03(A), a first degree misdemeanor, and in exchange the parties would jointly
recommend a jail term of 180 days, with 180 days credit for time served. The trial
court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Taylor and determined that his plea was
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and then found him guilty of Unauthorized Use
of a Motor Vehicle.
{¶7} Sentencing then proceeded on both cases. The trial court sentenced
Taylor to six years in prison on the Aggravated Burglary conviction and three years
in prison on the attached firearm specification. Those sentences were ordered to be
served consecutively by operation of law. Taylor was sentenced to twenty-four
months in prison on the Having Weapons While Under Disability charge, to run
concurrent with the Aggravated Burglary. As to the Unauthorized Use of a Motor
Vehicle in case 19CR0049, the trial court imposed the jointly recommended
-4-
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
sentence of 180 days with credit for time served, concurrent to the other charges.
Judgment entries memorializing Taylor’s sentences were filed May 29, 2019. It is
from these judgments that Taylor appeals, asserting the following assignment of
error for our review.
Assignment of Error
Because the record, as shown by clear and convincing evidence,
does not support the trial court’s findings under the relevant
statutes, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), the trial court’s sentence of
Appellant in case number 2018 CR 0266 was not supported by the
record.
13-19-22
{¶8} Initially we note that although Taylor filed an appeal from trial court
case 19CR0049, which corresponds to appellate case 13-19-22, he does not actually
make any argument challenging his 180 day jail sentence for Unauthorized Use of
a Vehicle in that case. Rather, his assignment of error challenges his sentence in
2018CR0266, which corresponds to appellate case 13-19-21. As there are no issues
raised regarding appeal 13-19-22, that appeal is dismissed.1
13-19-21
{¶9} In his assignment of error, Taylor argues that the record does not
support the trial court’s imposition of a six-year prison term for Aggravated
Burglary in trial court case number 18CR0266.
1
Notably, the sentence in trial court case 19CR0049 was jointly recommended by the parties and was
imposed by the trial judge, thus it would not be subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
-5-
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
Standard of Review
{¶10} Revised Code 2953.08(G)(2) provides that when reviewing felony
sentences, a reviewing court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may
vacate and remand the matter for resentencing, only if it clearly and convincingly
finds that either the record does not support the sentencing court’s statutory findings
or the sentence is contrary to law. State v. Kerns, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-18-05, 2018-
Ohio-3838, ¶ 10, citing State v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104354, 2017-Ohio-
99, ¶ 7.
Analysis
{¶11} “ ‘The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the
authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give
its reasons for imposing maximum or more than [a] minimum sentence[].’ ” State
v. Castle, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-16, 2016-Ohio-4974, ¶ 26, quoting State v.
King, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2012-CA-25, 2013-Ohio-2021, ¶ 45; State v. Freeman, 3d
Dist. Union No. 14-18-16, 2019-Ohio-669, ¶ 11. Nevertheless, when exercising its
sentencing discretion, a trial court must consider the statutory policies that apply to
every felony offense, including those set out in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.
2929.12. State v. Kerns, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-18-05, 2018-Ohio-3838, ¶ 8, citing
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St. 3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, ¶ 38.
-6-
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
{¶12} Revised Code 2929.11 provides that sentences for a felony shall be
guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing: “to protect the public from
future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the
effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court
determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on
state of local government resources.” R.C. 2929.11(A). In order to comply with
those purposes and principles, R.C. 2929.12 instructs a trial court to consider
various factors set forth in the statute relating to the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct and to the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism. R.C. 2929.12(A)-(E).
{¶13} In the case sub judice, Taylor was convicted of Aggravated Burglary
in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(2), a first degree felony. Revised Code
2929.14(A)(1)(b) states that the prison term for a first degree felony “shall be a
definite prison term of three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven years.”
Thus the trial court’s sentence of six years was within the statutory range for a first
degree felony. Nevertheless, Taylor argues that the sentence was clearly and
convincingly contrary to law.
{¶14} More specifically, Taylor contends that he expressed genuine remorse,
that he stated he was ready to take responsibility for his actions, that he admitted
what he did was wrong, that he had the support of his family and community, and
that he grew up without a father and was the protector of his brother and sister. He
-7-
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
also stated that he had a limited criminal history prior to these offenses. Taylor
contends that these issues should have mitigated his conduct. He argues that
because he had to serve a consecutive three-year prison term on the firearm
specification by operation of law, a six-year prison term on the Aggravated Burglary
conviction placed “his sentence effectively at the higher end of the 3-11 year
sentencing range for a first-degree felony.” (Appt.’s Br. at 8). Taylor contends that
such a sentence was not warranted in this matter.
{¶15} In fashioning the sentence in this case, the trial court stated that it had
considered the record, the oral statements made at sentencing, the presentence
report, the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, and that it had
balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under 2929.12. The trial court’s
consideration of the applicable statutes was reiterated in the trial court’s judgment
entry. Given that the trial court stated it had considered the appropriate statutes and
that the sentence was within the statutory range, we cannot find that the sentence is
clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
{¶16} However, although no further findings were necessary, the record does
contain statements to support more than a minimum sentence in this matter. The
State noted that Taylor’s two accomplices had each been sentenced to a seven-year
prison term for their involvement in this matter and they were not even the
individuals who “actually physically had the firearm” to the victim’s head—that
-8-
Case Nos. 13-19-21, 13-19-22
was Taylor. (May 28, 2019, Tr. at 15). Moreover, the record showed that the
burglary had been planned over multiple days, with messages being sent to the
victim to make sure he would be home so that the burglars would not have to break-
in. In addition, the victim was still suffering, having difficulty feeling safe in his
own home.
{¶17} Furthermore, the record indicates that Taylor was out on bond for an
armed robbery at the time of these offenses. While Taylor argues that he did not
have a serious criminal history, he had multiple felonies and was only twenty years
old at the time of these offenses. Finally, Taylor had a high ORAS score, indicating
a high risk level of future recidivism.
{¶18} Based on the statements and evidence included in the record, we
cannot find that the trial court’s sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to
law. For all of these reasons, Taylor’s assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶19} For the foregoing reasons Taylor’s assignment of error is overruled in
case 13-19-21 and the judgment of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court is
affirmed. Case number 13-19-22 is dismissed.
13-19-21 Judgment Affirmed
13-19-22 Case Dismissed
PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-9-