[Cite as State v. Cohee, 2020-Ohio-1119.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108652 v. :
JUSTIN COHEE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 26, 2020
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-18-634477-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Denise Salerno, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph V. Pagano, for appellant.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.:
Defendant-appellant Justin Cohee (“Cohee”) appeals from his
sentence following a guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Cohee’s
sentence but remand for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry that accurately
reflects the waiver of court costs. Procedural and Substantive History
On November 27, 2018, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted
Cohee on two counts of attempted rape in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and
2907.02(A)(2), two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of
R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), one
count of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(B)(2), and one count of
importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(A). The attempted rape counts and the
kidnapping count each carried notices of prior conviction, repeat violent offender,
and sexually violent predator specifications. The gross sexual imposition counts
both carried a sexually violent predator specification.
On March 28, 2019, the court held a plea hearing. Cohee pleaded
guilty to three amended counts of gross sexual imposition, an amended count of
attempted rape, and two counts of importuning as charged. The remaining counts
and specifications were nolled. The court referred Cohee to the probation
department for preparation of a presentence-investigation report (“PSI”).
On May 7, 2019, the court held a sentencing hearing. The court heard
statements from the prosecutor, who read statements from one of the victims and
her mother into the record. The prosecutor informed the court that at the time of
the incidents leading to Cohee’s indictment, he was living with his girlfriend and her
two daughters. Cohee initiated a sexual relationship with one of the children and
repeatedly attempted to force himself on her. Cohee also offered the girl money and marijuana in exchange for sexual favors. The prosecutor asked the court to impose
a prison term. The court also heard from defense counsel.
The court stated that it had considered the record, the statements
made at sentencing, the PSI and mitigation-of-penalty reports, and the victim
impact statements. The court also stated that it considered the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing. The court sentenced Cohee to 12 months on each of
the three gross sexual imposition counts, 12 months on one importuning count, 24
months on the other importuning count, and seven years on the attempted rape
count. The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary and stated that
all sentences would run consecutive, for a total prison term of 14 years. The court
journalized this sentence, and subsequently issued a corrected journal entry
reflecting a total sentence of 13 years.
Cohee appealed, presenting two assignments of error for our review.
Law and Analysis
In Cohee’s first assignment of error, he argues that his sentence is
contrary to law because the record does not support the imposition of consecutive
sentences on all counts.
Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, a reviewing court may overturn the
imposition of consecutive sentences where it clearly and convincingly finds that the
trial court failed to make the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or that the
record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),
or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a sentencing court to make certain
findings before imposing consecutive sentences. First, the trial court must find that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The court must also find that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and
to the danger the offender poses to the public. Id. Finally, the court must find any
one 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 adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Beyond making these findings on the record, the court must
also incorporate the findings into its sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio
St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 1.
Here, Cohee does not dispute that the trial court made the required
findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Instead, he asserts that the findings are
clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. In support of this argument,
he asserts that although the court specifically mentioned certain mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing, the court failed to consider several additional mitigating
factors. Specifically, Cohee submits that the court should have considered his
untreated substance-abuse issues and his serious mental-health issues.
The sentencing transcript reflects that the court considered the PSI
and the mitigation-of-penalty reports, both of which addressed his substance-abuse
and mental-health issues. The court further noted that it considered that Cohee had
suffered abuse as a child, stating:
When you’re not properly treated and you don’t go through counseling and trauma therapy that gets buried and it manifests itself and it creates victims and that’s unfortunate. And it’s not a cop-out for you, but it’s a mitigating factor.
The record clearly undermines Cohee’s argument.
Moreover, Cohee has failed to establish that the court’s consecutive-
sentence findings are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. A review
of the record clearly shows that the court both considered the factors in R.C. 2929.11
and 2929.12, and made appropriate consecutive-sentence findings in R.C. 2929.14.
In doing so, the court specifically referenced the harm Cohee inflicted on the juvenile
victims, the seriousness and recidivism factors relevant to the offense and the
offender, and the need for incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Cohee’s
assertion that the court should have considered additional factors or given more or
less weight to certain factors is not sufficient to show that the record fails to support
the court’s findings. Nor is it a basis for reversing his sentence. State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Cohee, 2020-Ohio-1119.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108652 v. :
JUSTIN COHEE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 26, 2020
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-18-634477-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Denise Salerno, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph V. Pagano, for appellant.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.:
Defendant-appellant Justin Cohee (“Cohee”) appeals from his
sentence following a guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Cohee’s
sentence but remand for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry that accurately
reflects the waiver of court costs. Procedural and Substantive History
On November 27, 2018, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted
Cohee on two counts of attempted rape in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and
2907.02(A)(2), two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of
R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), one
count of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(B)(2), and one count of
importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(A). The attempted rape counts and the
kidnapping count each carried notices of prior conviction, repeat violent offender,
and sexually violent predator specifications. The gross sexual imposition counts
both carried a sexually violent predator specification.
On March 28, 2019, the court held a plea hearing. Cohee pleaded
guilty to three amended counts of gross sexual imposition, an amended count of
attempted rape, and two counts of importuning as charged. The remaining counts
and specifications were nolled. The court referred Cohee to the probation
department for preparation of a presentence-investigation report (“PSI”).
On May 7, 2019, the court held a sentencing hearing. The court heard
statements from the prosecutor, who read statements from one of the victims and
her mother into the record. The prosecutor informed the court that at the time of
the incidents leading to Cohee’s indictment, he was living with his girlfriend and her
two daughters. Cohee initiated a sexual relationship with one of the children and
repeatedly attempted to force himself on her. Cohee also offered the girl money and marijuana in exchange for sexual favors. The prosecutor asked the court to impose
a prison term. The court also heard from defense counsel.
The court stated that it had considered the record, the statements
made at sentencing, the PSI and mitigation-of-penalty reports, and the victim
impact statements. The court also stated that it considered the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing. The court sentenced Cohee to 12 months on each of
the three gross sexual imposition counts, 12 months on one importuning count, 24
months on the other importuning count, and seven years on the attempted rape
count. The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary and stated that
all sentences would run consecutive, for a total prison term of 14 years. The court
journalized this sentence, and subsequently issued a corrected journal entry
reflecting a total sentence of 13 years.
Cohee appealed, presenting two assignments of error for our review.
Law and Analysis
In Cohee’s first assignment of error, he argues that his sentence is
contrary to law because the record does not support the imposition of consecutive
sentences on all counts.
Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, a reviewing court may overturn the
imposition of consecutive sentences where it clearly and convincingly finds that the
trial court failed to make the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or that the
record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),
or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a sentencing court to make certain
findings before imposing consecutive sentences. First, the trial court must find that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The court must also find that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and
to the danger the offender poses to the public. Id. Finally, the court must find any
one 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 adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Beyond making these findings on the record, the court must
also incorporate the findings into its sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio
St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 1.
Here, Cohee does not dispute that the trial court made the required
findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Instead, he asserts that the findings are
clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. In support of this argument,
he asserts that although the court specifically mentioned certain mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing, the court failed to consider several additional mitigating
factors. Specifically, Cohee submits that the court should have considered his
untreated substance-abuse issues and his serious mental-health issues.
The sentencing transcript reflects that the court considered the PSI
and the mitigation-of-penalty reports, both of which addressed his substance-abuse
and mental-health issues. The court further noted that it considered that Cohee had
suffered abuse as a child, stating:
When you’re not properly treated and you don’t go through counseling and trauma therapy that gets buried and it manifests itself and it creates victims and that’s unfortunate. And it’s not a cop-out for you, but it’s a mitigating factor.
The record clearly undermines Cohee’s argument.
Moreover, Cohee has failed to establish that the court’s consecutive-
sentence findings are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. A review
of the record clearly shows that the court both considered the factors in R.C. 2929.11
and 2929.12, and made appropriate consecutive-sentence findings in R.C. 2929.14.
In doing so, the court specifically referenced the harm Cohee inflicted on the juvenile
victims, the seriousness and recidivism factors relevant to the offense and the
offender, and the need for incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Cohee’s
assertion that the court should have considered additional factors or given more or
less weight to certain factors is not sufficient to show that the record fails to support
the court’s findings. Nor is it a basis for reversing his sentence. State v. Ledbetter,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104077, 2017-Ohio-89, ¶ 11. Finally, Cohee argues that because the trial court imposed a sentence
totaling 13 years but stated on the record that his total sentence was 14 years, the
matter should be returned to the trial court for it to properly advise him of his
13-year sentence. We disagree. Although the trial court incorrectly calculated
Cohee’s total sentence both on the record at the sentencing hearing and in its initial
sentencing journal entry, the trial court’s explanation of Cohee’s sentence for each
count confirms that this was a mathematical error. Therefore, we conclude that this
error was appropriately corrected by the court in its corrected journal entry dated
May 7, 2019. State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108364, 2020-Ohio-491,
¶ 15. For these reasons, Cohee’s first assignment of error is overruled.
In his second assignment of error, Cohee argues that although the
trial court waived court costs at his sentencing hearing, the corrected journal entry
imposed court costs. This error is clerical and can be corrected with a nunc pro tunc
entry that properly reflects what the court actually did at Cohee’s sentencing
hearing. State v. Hampton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103992, 2016-Ohio-5419, ¶ 3.
Therefore, Cohee’s second assignment of error is sustained.
Judgment is affirmed. However, this case is remanded to the trial
court for the limited purpose of correcting the sentencing journal entry to accurately
reflect the waiver of court costs.
It is ordered that appellant and appellee share costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case
remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence and a nunc pro tunc entry of
correction.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR