Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District

June 20, 2013

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
REPINTOE THOMPSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-557987 and CR-558722

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Thomas A. Rein

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Mary Weston Assistant County Prosecutor

BEFORE: Stewart, A.J., Kilbane, J., and Blackmon, J.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

MELODY J. STEWART, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Redintoe[1] Thompson entered into a plea agreement for two cases both in connection with the robbery of a Family Dollar store. On two separate occasions, Thompson and two codefendants participated in the armed robbery of a Family Dollar store where Thompson was employed at the time. For each case, Thompson pled guilty to fourth degree felonies of attempted robbery in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2911.02(A)(3). On June 13, 2012, the trial court sentenced Thompson to 15 months in prison for each case. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively for a total of 30 months confinement. In this appeal, Thompson's sole assignment of error argues that the trial court ordered consecutive sentences without making the appropriate findings required by R.C. 2929.14. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86, which became effective on September 30, 2011, 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.

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) permits the court to impose sentence on multiple prison terms consecutively if it finds that (1) a consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and (2) that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. In addition to these two factors, the court must find 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.

State v. Jarrett, 8th Dist. No. 98759, 2013-Ohio-1663.

{¶ 3} Thompson's sole assigned error is without merit because the transcript from the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial court made the required findings before imposing consecutive sentences. In State v. Goins, 8th Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263, this court held that a trial court is not required to use "talismanic words" to comply with the guidelines and factors for sentencing. Although specific words are not required, the sentencing transcript must clearly show the appropriate findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences.

{ΒΆ4} At the sentencing hearing, Thompson's lawyer spoke on his client's behalf focusing on the friends and family members in support of Thompson. Counsel also asked the court to consider that Thompson showed remorse for his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.