Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case Nos. CR-15-602274-A and CR-15-602350-A
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Timothy Young Ohio Public Defender
BY: Stephen P. Hardwick Assistant Ohio Public Defender.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Jonathan Block Assistant Prosecuting
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, P.J., Blackmon, J., and Celebrezze, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
C. GALLAGHER, P.J.
Richard Lenard appeals his convictions in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos.
CR-15-602274-A and CR-15-602350-A. We affirm.
The victim and Lenard had a tumultuous and, at times, a
violent relationship. In October 2016, the two fought over
social media postings that led to physical altercation in
which the victim was injured. After being punched, the victim
ran into the kitchen of the residence where both were living
and grabbed a knife to defend herself. Lenard disarmed the
victim. He then dragged her into the living room where he
forced her to strip and lie on the floor. Lenard then beat
her with his belt. After the beating, Lenard took a knife and
threatened to cut the victim's hair in the attempt to end
the altercation (according to Lenard) or to terrorize the
victim into further psychological submission (according to
More than a month later, the couple fought again. This time
the altercation was more violent, and the victim ended up in
the hospital, although at trial they both claimed to have
mutually fought with fists and heavy objects used as weapons.
Lenard testified that the victim threw a jar of pennies and a
dresser at him, so Lenard began punching the victim in the
face. At one point during the altercation, the victim was
bleeding enough that blood spattered on the wall and the
carpet. Lenard put rubber gloves on before punching the
The fight ended with both allegedly falling down a flight of
stairs, as an explanation for the victim's serious
injuries. Lenard had sprained his wrist and ankle, and
claimed to have scars on his forehead from the victim's
conduct. The next day, the victim was walking on the street
and a passerby called the police because of the victim's
appearance. Her injuries from the second altercation were far
more serious than the first. After being admitted to the
hospital, the victim was diagnosed with a concussion,
bleeding in her brain, and multiple bruises over her body.
Lenard was separately indicted for the two altercations, but
the cases were consolidated for trial. At trial the victim
minimized the extent of Lenard's conduct but corroborated
portions of her statement made to the police following the
events. Her original statements implicated Lenard as the
aggressor and confirmed the belt-beating and hair-cutting
incidents. In addition, the medical records included
statements made by the victim as to how her injuries
occurred. Those statements also painted Lenard as an abuser.
Lenard claims to have been acting in self-defense at all
The state introduced correspondence between the victim and
Lenard, some of which was prohibited by a no-contact order,
in which the victim professed her love and devotion to Lenard
and her willingness to do anything for him. Lenard also told
the victim to not identify him at trial or not show up.
When all was said and done, Lenard was convicted of felonious
assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and kidnapping under R.C.
2905.01(A)(3) for the second altercation. The trial court
imposed seven-year, concurrent sentences on both counts to be
served consecutive to another unrelated case in which Lenard
was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Lenard was also
convicted of kidnapping under R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and a
separate kidnapping under R.C. 2905.01(B)(2) for the first
altercation. The trial court imposed 6-year, concurrent terms
on both counts to be served consecutive to the aforementioned
cases. The resulting aggregate sentenced totaled 14 years, 4
Lenard appealed, claiming that the trial court erred: (1)
when it imposed court costs in the final entry of conviction
without providing Lenard the opportunity to object at the
sentencing hearing, in violation of State v. Joseph,
125 Ohio St.3d 76, 2010-Ohio-954, 926 N.E.2d 278; (2) by
failing to merge the two kidnapping charges from the first
altercation; and (3) in permitting the state to admit
evidence from a detective not based on his personal
experience or expert knowledge.
There is no error with respect to the failure to impose court
costs at the sentencing based on Joseph. In
State v. Beasley, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-493,
¶ 265, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "after
Joseph was decided and before [the defendant] was
sentenced, the General Assembly amended R.C. 2947.23 by
adding subdivision (C), " which provides that
"[t]he court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or
modify the payment of the costs of prosecution * * * at the
time of sentencing or at any time thereafter"
(Emphasis sic.) Beasley concluded that
Joseph no longer controlled and the defendant could
file a motion to waive the payment of costs at any time such
that there is no reversible error in failing to impose costs
at the sentencing hearing. Id. As it relates ...