State v. Dandy

[Cite as State v. Dandy, 2021-Ohio-652.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
ERIKA DANDY : Case Nos. 2020-CA-0049
: 2020-CA-0055
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas Case Nos. 2019-CR-0587 &
2019-CR-0941
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 5, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH C. SNYDER JOHN C. O'DONNELL, III
38 South Park Street 10 West Newlon Place
Mansfield, OH 44902 Mansfield, OH 44902
Richland County, Case Nos. 2020-CA-0049 & 2020-CA-0055 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Erika Dandy, appeals her May 13, 2020 consecutive
sentences by the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee
is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} Appellant was on probation in two separate cases. She violated the terms
of her probation. A hearing was held on May 6, 2020, wherein appellant admitted to
several community control violations. By judgment entries filed May 13, 2020, the trial
court sentenced appellant to six months in prison in each case, to be served
consecutively.
{¶ 3} Appellant filed an appeal in each case and this matter is now before this
court for consideration. The assignment of error is identical for each appeal:
I
{¶ 4} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES CONTRARY TO ORC §2929.14(C)(4)."
I
{¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error in each case, appellant claims the trial
court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We disagree.
{¶ 6} This court reviews felony sentences using the standard of review set forth
in R.C. 2953.08. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d
1231, ¶ 22; State v. Howell, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00004, 2015-Ohio-4049, ¶ 31.
Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a
sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that
either the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C.
Richland County, Case Nos. 2020-CA-0049 & 2020-CA-0055 3
2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 7} "Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which
is more than a mere 'preponderance of the evidence,' but not to the extent of such
certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will
produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought
to be established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954),
paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶ 8} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) governs consecutive sentences and states the
following:
(4) 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
Richland County, Case Nos. 2020-CA-0049 & 2020-CA-0055 4
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.
{¶ 9} "In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is
required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing
hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to
state reasons to support its findings." State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-
3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus. "[A] word-for-word recitation of the language of the
statute is not required, and as long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court
engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to
support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld." Id. at ¶ 29.
{¶ 10} In each case, appellant was sentenced to three years of community
control after having been convicted of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C.
2925.11, felonies of the fifth degree. See Sentencing Entries filed December 26, 2019.
The trial court informed her that if she violated, "in each case she's looking at 12 months
in prison." December 18, 2019 T. at 6.
{¶ 11} Appellant violated the terms of her community control and a hearing was
held on March 18, 2020. The trial court ordered her to successfully complete the
CROSSWAEH CBCF program when a bed was available and in the meantime,
released her on her own recognizance. March 18, 2020 T. at 20-21. The trial court
Richland County, Case Nos. 2020-CA-0049 & 2020-CA-0055 5
informed her that if she messed up, "we're not talking CBCF," "[w]e'd be talking, you
know, prison at that point." Id. at 18. Again, she was informed that if she violated, she
would be looking "at 12 months in prison on each case, both cases." Id. at 21.
{¶ 12} Again, appellant violated the terms of her community control and a hearing
was held on May 6, 2020. Appellant admitted to not entering and completing the CBCF
program, testing positive for cocaine in March 2020, failing to make payments on her
fines/costs, and being in the presence of individuals with active warrants. May 6, 2020
T. at 26-27. The trial court noted it gave appellant the opportunity at community control,
and then sentenced her to six months on each case, to be served consecutively. Id. at
31. The trial court explained its reasoning for consecutive service as follows (Id. at 32):
The reason they're consecutive is I think criminal history
demonstrates - - and the prosecutor is right, Miss Dandy has a 2017 case,
an (inaudible) case, a 2003 case, a 1999 case, and then two 2019 cases.
So for that reason, I think the criminal history is enough that it's necessary
to protect the public, punish the offender, it's not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the conduct or the danger posed based on that criminal
history.
{¶ 13} In its May 13, 2020 judgment entries, the trial court noted it considered the
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and included its findings on consecutive
sentences:
Richland County, Case Nos. 2020-CA-0049 & 2020-CA-0055 6
The sentences are made consecutive because consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender, and consecutive sentences are not disproportionate
to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public, and because:
The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
{¶ 14} Appellant admitted to violating the terms of her community control a
second time. The trial court made all the required consecutive sentence findings at the
sentencing hearing, and incorporated those findings into the sentencing entry. The trial
court considered the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors and the record supports the trial
court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
{¶ 15} Upon review, we find appellant has failed to clearly and convincingly
establish that her consecutive sentences are unsupported by the record or contrary to
law.
{¶ 16} The sole assignment of error in each case is denied.
Richland County, Case Nos. 2020-CA-0049 & 2020-CA-0055 7
{¶ 17} The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio
are hereby affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Gwin, J. concur.
EEW/db