Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney,
Michael Greer, Government Services Center, for appellee
Michele Temmel, for appellant
1} Appellant, Mickey Murrill, appeals the sentence
he received in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas after
he pled guilty to ten sexual offenses. For the reasons stated
below, we affirm his sentence.
2} In February 2018, a Butler County Grand Jury
indicted appellant on 25 sexual offenses that included rape,
kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification, illegal
use of a minor in a nudity-oriented material or performance,
gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually oriented matter
involving a minor, and voyeurism. These charges stemmed from
appellant's actions with several children he knew through
friends and family.
3} In September 2018, appellant pled guilty to ten
of the offenses: one count of rape, a first-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); one count of kidnapping
with a sexual motivation specification, a first-degree felony
in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2); one count of gross sexual
imposition, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2907.05(A)(4); two counts of illegal use of a minor in a
nudity-oriented material or performance, one a second-degree
felony in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(1), the other a
fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3); two
counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a
minor, both fourth-degree felonies in violation of R.C.
2907.322(A)(5); and three counts of voyeurism, two
fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.08(C), the
other a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C.
4} At the sentencing hearing in October 2018, the
court imposed an indefinite prison term of 10 years to life
for the kidnapping offense and an indefinite prison term of
15 years to life for the rape offense. The court ordered
these two sentences to run consecutively to each other. Based
on a stipulation between the state and appellant, the court
imposed the sentences with the possibility of parole after
serving the aggregate minimum sentence. For the remaining
eight offenses, one offense merged with the kidnapping
offense, and for the others, the court sentenced appellant to
definite prison terms with these sentences to run
concurrently to the indefinite sentences. Therefore,
appellant's aggregate prison sentence is 25 years to
life. The trial court designated appellant a Tier III sexual
offender and notified appellant about the conditions of
parole and mandatory five-year postrelease control should he
be released from prison.
5} Appellant now appeals, raising one assignment of
error for review:
6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR.
MURRILL WHEN IT SENTENCED HIM TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IN THE
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS.
7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues
that the consecutive sentences are contrary to law because
the trial court failed to make the required findings pursuant
to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Specifically, appellant contends that
the trial court merely "acquiesced" by
incorporating statements from the prosecutor at the
sentencing hearing as part of its required findings. We find
appellant's argument lacks merit.
8} This court reviews felony sentences according to
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d
516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Pursuant to that statute, an
appellate court may "increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds
that the sentence is (1) contrary to law and/or (2)
unsupported by the record." State v. McGowan,
147 Ohio St.3d 166, 2016-Ohio-2971, ¶ 1, citing
Marcum at ¶ 7.
9} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) sets forth the requirements
for imposing consecutive prison sentences. Pursuant to this
statute, a trial court must engage in a three-part analysis
and make three findings to properly impose consecutive
sentences. State v. Smith, 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2014-07-054, 2015-Ohio-1093, ¶ 7. Specifically, the
trial court must find that "consecutive service is
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender" and second, "consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses
to the public." R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); See also State
v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-493, ¶
252. Third, the trial court must find that one of the
following provisions applies:
(a) [t]he 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 ...