State v. Fitchpatrick

2026 Ohio 485

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 30574, 30575, 30576
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Fitchpatrick, 2026-Ohio-485.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. Nos. 30574; 30575; 30576 Appellee : : Trial Court Case Nos. 2025 CR 01150; v. : 2025 CR 01707; 2025 CR 01709 : AUSTIN FITCHPATRICK : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & OPINION ...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on February 13, 2026, the judgments

of the trial court are affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. Nos. 30574; 30575; 30576

MICHAEL MILLS, Attorney for Appellant JONATHAN MURRAY, Attorney for Appellee

LEWIS, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Austin Fitchpatrick appeals from three judgments of the

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court that imposed consecutive prison sentences

totaling 108 months. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I. Procedural History

{¶ 2} On May 9, 2025, in Montgomery C.P. No. 2025 CR 1150, Fitchpatrick was

indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury on one count of tampering with evidence in

violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony; one count of having weapons while

under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a third-degree felony; one count of having

weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a third-degree felony; one

count of carrying concealed weapons in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), a fourth-degree

felony; one count of obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A), a second-

degree misdemeanor; and one count of resisting arrest in violation of R.C. 2921.33(A), a

second-degree misdemeanor. These offenses related to events that occurred on April 26,

2025.

{¶ 3} On June 27, 2025, in Montgomery C.P. No. 2025 CR 1707, a bill of information

was filed against Fitchpatrick for one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle in violation of

R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a fourth-degree felony. This offense related to events that occurred on

April 9, 2025.

2 {¶ 4} Also on June 27, 2025, a second bill of information was filed against Fitchpatrick

in Montgomery C.P. No. 2025 CR 1709 for one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle in

violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a fourth-degree felony. This offense related to events that

occurred on April 6, 2025.

{¶ 5} On July 8, 2025, Fitchpatrick entered a plea of no contest to all counts in Case

No. 2025 CR 1150, and a plea of guilty to each of the grand theft of a motor vehicle counts

in Case Nos. 2025 CR 1707 and 2025 CR 1709. The trial court found him guilty of all

charges and ordered Fitchpatrick to appear for sentencing.

{¶ 6} At the July 15, 2025 sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the two counts

of having weapons while under disability in Case No. 2025 CR 1150 and sentenced

Fitchpatrick to a stated prison term of 36 months. The trial court further imposed a stated

prison term of 36 months for tampering with evidence; 18 months in prison for carrying

concealed weapons; and 90 days of local incarceration for each of the misdemeanor

offenses. The trial court ordered the prison sentences for having weapons while under

disability and tampering with evidence to be served consecutively to each other. However,

the prison term for carrying concealed weapons and the jail sentences for the misdemeanor

offenses were ordered to be served concurrently with all other sentences for a total stated

prison term of 72 months in Case No. 2025 CR 1150.

{¶ 7} In Case No. 2025 CR 1707, the trial court sentenced Fitchpatrick to a stated

prison term of 18 months for grand theft of a motor vehicle. The trial court similarly imposed

a stated prison term of 18 months for grand theft of a motor vehicle in Case No. 2025 CR

1709. The prison sentences in Case Nos. 2025 CR 1707 and 2025 CR 1709 were ordered

to be served consecutively to each other and to the sentence in Case No. 2025 CR 1150 for

a total stated prison term of 108 months in all three cases.

3 {¶ 8} In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court found that consecutive

sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish Fitchpatrick

and that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of

Fitchpatrick’s conduct and to the danger he posed to the public. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The

court further found that Fitchpatrick’s history of criminal conduct demonstrated that

consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime by

Fitchpatrick. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). The court ordered Fitchpatrick to pay court costs and

fines and to pay restitution in the amount of $7,126.00 in Case No. 2025 CR 1709. Finally,

in Case No. 2025 CR 1150, the trial court ordered the forfeiture of a firearm as part of the

agreement of the parties.

{¶ 9} Fitchpatrick timely appealed from all three judgments, and we consolidated the

appeals.

II. Consecutive Sentences

{¶ 10} In his sole assignment of error, Fitchpatrick contends that the trial court failed

to make a sufficient record to support consecutive sentences. In reviewing felony

sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 21. Under this statute, an

appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or it may vacate the

sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either:

(1) that the record does not support certain specified findings (including those in

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which concern the imposition of consecutive sentences) or (2) that the

sentence imposed is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “Clear and

convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere

‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required

4 ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and 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. In reviewing the imposition of

consecutive sentences, an appellate court must “review the entire trial-court record,

including any oral or written statements made to or by the trial court at the sentencing

hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted

to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed.” State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083,

¶ 12, citing R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) through (4).

{¶ 11} “Ohio law presumes that a defendant convicted of multiple crimes will serve

his sentences concurrently.” State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 38, citing R.C. 2929.41(A).

A trial court may, however, impose consecutive sentences when the law specifically permits

it to do so, such as the exception provided by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Id., citing

R.C. 2929.41(A). Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), to impose consecutive sentences, the trial

court must find that: (1) “the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from

future crime or to punish the offender”; (2) “consecutive sentences are not disproportionate

to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the

public”; and (3) one or more of the following apply:

(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

5 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.

{¶ 12} To impose consecutive prison sentences, “a trial court is required to make the

findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its

findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its

findings.” State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, syllabus. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “where

a trial court properly makes the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), an appellate court

may not reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences unless it first clearly

and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings.” State v.

Withrow, 2016-Ohio-2884, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.). The standard of review of the trial court’s

consecutive-sentence findings is deferential, and it prohibits an appellate court from simply

substituting its judgment for that of the trial court. State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 15.

{¶ 13} Fitchpatrick claims that the trial court failed to make a sufficient record to

support consecutive sentences in Case No. 2025 CR 1150 and made no specific findings to

support consecutive sentences in Case Nos. 2025 CR 1707 and 2025 CR 1709. The State

responds that the trial court made the necessary findings on the record and in the termination

entries to support consecutive sentences, which sufficiently demonstrates that the trial court

engaged in the appropriate analysis to impose consecutive sentences. The State further

argues that the underlying events and Fitchpatrick’s lengthy criminal history contained in the

pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”) supports the trial court’s consecutive sentence

findings.

6 {¶ 14} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated it had reviewed the PSI,

statements of the victims, and documents related to restitution. The court heard the

arguments of counsel and Fitchpatrick’s statements in support of mitigation. The

prosecutor noted Fitchpatrick’s “extensive criminal history,” which prohibited Fitchpatrick

from possessing a firearm, and emphasized that a 14-year-old child died as a result of

Fitchpatrick’s illegal possession of the firearm in the incident underlying Case No. 2025 CR

1150. Tr. 17. Defense counsel acknowledged Fitchpatrick’s criminal history but asked the

court to consider a community-based correctional facility or concurrent sentences so that

Fitchpatrick could turn his life around.

{¶ 15} Prior to imposing sentence, the court stated that it had considered the

purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors of the

Ohio Revised Code. The court further stated that (1) consecutive sentences were

necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish Fitchpatrick; (2) consecutive

sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and danger that

Fitchpatrick poses to the public; and (3) Fitchpatrick’s history of criminal conduct

demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future

crime by Fitchpatrick. The trial court included these findings in its judgment entries.

{¶ 16} The record reflects that Fitchpatrick, who was 26 years old, had a lengthy

juvenile and adult criminal history, including 11 prior felony convictions. Fitchpatrick had

been released from prison approximately 2 months prior to the commission of the underlying

offenses. Moreover, Fitchpatrick was being sentenced on multiple unrelated cases, which

supports the trial court’s finding that Fitchpatrick’s criminal conduct demonstrated

consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime.

7 Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the

trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. Fitchpatrick’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 17} Having overruled Fitchpatrick’s assignment of error, we affirm the judgments

of the trial court.

.............

TUCKER, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.