Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Mark A. Stanton Cuyahoga County
Public Defender Jeffrey Gamso Assistant Public Defender
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor Ashley B. Kilbane Assistant County
BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., Laster Mays, J., and Celebrezze, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE
Defendant-appellant Latwan Anderson appeals from his
conviction for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and tampering
with evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Anderson was charged in two cases for his involvement in
three robberies. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16-603854, he was
charged with one count of aggravated robbery, two counts of
robbery, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of petty
theft. All of the charges pertain to an incident that
occurred on January 10, 2016, and five of the six counts
included one- and three-year firearm specifications. In
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16-603794, Anderson was charged in an
18-count indictment that stems from an incident on January
24, 2016, and an incident on February 12, 2016. These charges
included three counts of aggravated robbery (Counts 1, 7, and
12), nine counts of robbery (Counts 2-4, 8-10, and 13-15),
three counts of kidnapping (Counts 5, 11, and 16), one count
of petty theft (Count 6), one count of theft (Count 17), and
one count of tampering with evidence (Count 18). The
indictment included multiple one- and three-year firearm
specifications and multiple forfeiture specifications.
On July 26, 2016, Anderson entered into a guilty plea to
amended charges. In Case No. 603854, Anderson pleaded guilty
to aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) in
Count 1, and the attendant one-year firearm specification,
and kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) in Count 5.
All remaining charges and specifications were nolled. In Case
No. 603794, Anderson pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in
violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) in Count 1, and its attendant
three-year firearm specification, aggravated robbery in
violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) in Count 7, and its attendant
forfeiture specification, and tampering with evidence in
violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) in Count 18. All remaining
charges and specifications were nolled.
On August 23, 2016, the trial court imposed a prison
sentence. In Case No. 603854, the court sentenced Anderson to
three years each on the aggravated robbery and the
kidnapping, to be served concurrently, and one year on the
firearm specification, to be served consecutively to the
underlying charge, for a total of four years. In Case No.
603794, the court sentenced Anderson to three years each on
the aggravated robberies in Count 1 and 7, as well as the
attendant firearm specification, to be served consecutively,
and 36 months on the tampering charge in Count 18, to be
served concurrently, for a total of nine years. The total
aggregate sentence for both cases was 13 years in prison.
Anderson now appeals his sentence, contending that
consecutive sentences were not supported by the record
"when no individual sentence involved is the maximum
available for the offense and when the total time imposed for
consecutive sentences is less than the maximum sentence for
any one of the individual sentences made consecutive."
Anderson essentially argues that the court erred in imposing
consecutive sentences where it did not impose the maximum
sentence on the individual offenses, because if the court
finds that a sentence less than the maximum is sufficient,
then the record does not support consecutive sentences.
Anderson contends that this is particularly true when the
individual sentences served consecutively do not amount to
the available maximum sentence. We find no merit to
In reviewing felony sentences, we do not review the sentence
for an abuse of discretion. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); see also
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59
N.E.3d 1231. Rather, we may increase, reduce, modify a
sentence, or vacate and remand for resentencing if we clearly
and convincingly find that the record does not support the
sentencing court's statutory findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) or the sentence is contrary to law. State
v. Wenmoth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103520,
2016-Ohio-5135, ¶ 12, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
A sentence is contrary to law if it falls outside the
statutory range for the particular degree of offense or if
the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles
of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the
sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. State v.
Pawlak, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103444, 2016-Ohio-5926,
¶ 58. Courts have "full discretion" to impose
a sentence within the applicable statutory range. State
v. Collier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95572,
2011-Ohio-2791, ¶ 15, citing State v. Foster,
109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, paragraph
seven of the syllabus. Therefore, a sentence imposed within
the statutory range is "presumptively valid."
Collier at ¶ 15.
Here, Anderson does not dispute that he was sentenced within
the statutory range for his offenses, and he does not argue
that the court failed to consider the principles of felony
sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. We must therefore
determine whether we "clearly and convincingly find that
the record does not support the sentencing court's
statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)."
Wenmoth; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
In order to impose consecutive sentences, the trial court
must make findings set forth in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and
incorporate those findings into the journal entry of
sentence. State v. Bonnell,140 Ohio St.3d 209,
2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)
provides that the trial court must find that consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender, that such sentences would
not be ...