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. Urconis

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Wayne

November 13, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
LEWIS E. URCONIS Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2016 CRC-I 000167

          APPEARANCES: MATTHEW J. MALONE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          LYNNE S. CALLAHAN, Judge.

         {¶1} Appellant, Lewis Eugene Urconis, appeals his sentence from the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms.

         I. {¶2} After a jury trial, Mr. Urconis was sentenced to concurrent prison sentences for counts of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and having weapons under disability. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for the firearm specifications attached to the aggravated robbery and kidnapping counts. Mr. Urconis appeals, raising one assignment of error.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

         THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO IMPOSE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES UPON [MR. URCONIS].

         {¶3} Mr. Urconis was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, abduction, and having weapons while under disability. He was also found guilty of the firearm specifications (R.C. 2941.145(A)) attached to the aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and abduction charges. The trial court merged the abduction and its attendant firearm specification into the kidnapping and did not impose a sentence for the abduction or its firearm specification. Mr. Urconis was sentenced to thirteen-years as follows: seven years for aggravated robbery and three years for its firearm specification; seven years for kidnapping and three years for its firearm specification; eighteen months for having weapons while under disability. The trial court ordered that the sentences for the aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and having weapons under disability be served concurrently and ordered that the sentences for the two firearm specifications be served consecutively to each other and to the sentences imposed for the underlying offenses. Mr. Urconis now appeals the consecutive portion of his sentence.[1]

         {¶4} In reviewing a felony sentence, "[t]he appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion." R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). "[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that [1] the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that [2] the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that "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 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

         {¶5} Initially, this Court notes that Mr. Urconis does not argue that the sentences for the firearm specifications were subject to merger, but limits his argument to the trial court's failure to make findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). As such, this Court will limit its analysis to that issue.

         {¶6} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides, in part, that "[i]f 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" makes certain specific findings. (Emphasis added.) Hence, this statute applies to criminal offenses for which imposition of a consecutive prison sentence is discretionary.

         A firearm specification is not ...


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.