FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. CR-2018-02-0454-B CR-2018-05-1517
M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.
Tyler Jones appeals his sentence from the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
This is a consolidated appeal of two criminal cases involving
Mr. Jones. In those cases, Mr. Jones pleaded guilty to
aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, felonious
assault with a firearm specification, and theft. The trial
court accepted Mr. Jones's plea and the matter proceeded
to sentencing. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Mr.
Jones to the following terms of incarceration: 11 years for
aggravated robbery, eight years for felonious assault, three
years for each firearm specification, and 18 months for
theft. The trial court ordered all but the theft sentence to
be served consecutively, for a total of 25 years of
incarceration. Mr. Jones now appeals his sentence, raising
one assignment of error for our review.
TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SENTENCING MR. JONES TO A MAXIMUM TERM
OF IMPRISONMENT WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT DID NOT
SUPPORT SUCH A SENTENCE.
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Jones asserts that the
trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence for
aggravated robbery and felonious assault, and by ordering
those sentences to run consecutively. 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 (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.
Section 2929.14(C)(4) provides that, "[i]f multiple
prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of
multiple offenses," the sentencing court may require the
offender to serve the terms consecutively "if the court
finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect
the public from future crime or to punish the offender and
that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger
the offender poses to the public[.]" The court must also
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
postrelease 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