Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case Nos. CR-11-556322-A, CR-12-567510-B, and
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Myron P. Watson
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor Janna R. Steinruck Assistant County
BEFORE: Stewart, J., McCormack, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
J. STEWART, JUDGE
Defendant-appellant Corey Middleton pleaded guilty in three
separate cases that we have consolidated in this appeal. The
court ordered him to serve some of the sentences
consecutively, and he complains that the court's findings
in support of consecutive sentences are not supported by the
record and are contrary to law. He also argues that the court
failed to make all the statutory findings required to order
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-11-556322-A, Middleton pleaded guilty
to a third-degree felony count of drug trafficking. In
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-12-567510-B, Middleton pleaded guilty to
a third-degree felony count of improperly discharging a
firearm into a habitation. In Cuyahoga C.P. No.
CR-17-614514-A, Middleton pleaded guilty to a third-degree
felony count of having a weapon while under disability. The
court ordered Middleton to serve concurrent sentences of 18
months in CR-11-556322-A and 24 months in CR-12-567510-B. The
court ordered Middleton to serve 36 months in CR-17-614514-A.
It also ordered that Middleton serve his sentences in
CR-11-556322-A and CR-12-567510-B consecutive to the sentence
in CR-17-614514-A, for a total sentence of 60 months.
Middleton argues that the court failed to make the findings
for imposing consecutive sentences as required by R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). Those findings are, first, "that the
consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from
future crime or to punish the offender" and, second,
"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,
the court must make a third finding consisting of any of the
(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
(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct
demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime by the offender.
These findings must be made by the court on the record and
must also be contained in the court's sentencing entry.
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209,
2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus.
The court stated on the record that "the harm is so
great or unusual that a single term does not adequately
reflect the seriousness of the offense of the conduct and is
not disproportionate and is necessary to protect the public
and punish the offender." Tr. 33. The court also found
that Middleton was on community control at the time he