Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case Nos. CR-18-632329-A and CR-18-632825-A
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Yasmine M. Hasan, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
R. Fischbein-Cohen, for appellant
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE.
1} Oliver Salnave ("Salnave") appeals from
the trial court's imposition of consecutive prison
sentences in two felonious assault cases and assigns the
following error for our review:
was error to sentence Oliver Salnave to a consecutive
sentence when in fact he showed remorse.
2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we
affirm the trial court's judgment. The apposite facts
3} On July 21, 2018, Salnave shot a juvenile in her
home. On August 28, 2018, Salnave shot a second juvenile.
Both victims suffered injuries from the shootings, and both
4} On November 27, 2018, Salnave pled guilty to one
count of felonious assault, a second-degree felony, with a
three-year firearm specification in State v.
Salnave, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-18-632329-A, and one
count of felonious assault, a second-degree felony, in
State v. Salnave, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-18-632825-A.
On December 18, 2018, the court sentenced Salnave to the
At this time we'll start with case number 632329.
You're sentenced to three years on the underlying firearm
specification. That's to be served prior to and
consecutive to the underlying sentence of two years for a
total of five years of incarceration. With regard to case
number 632825, you are sentenced to two years of
incarceration. Those sentences will be run consecutive to
each other for a total time of seven years in prison.
5} It is from this order that Salnave appeals.
sentencing standard of review
6} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides, in part, that when
reviewing felony sentences, the appellate court's
standard is not whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion; rather, if this court "clearly and
convincingly" finds that (1) "the record does not
support the sentencing court's findings under" R.C.
Chapter 2929 or (2) "the sentence is otherwise contrary
to law," then we may conclude that the court erred in
sentencing. See also State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d
516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231.
7} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly
contrary to law "where the trial court considers the
purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as
well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C.
2929.12, properly applies post-release control, and sentences
a defendant within the permissible ...