[Cite as State v. Glenn, 2019-Ohio-3949.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-02-041
: OPINION - vs - 9/30/2019 :
JASON E. GLENN, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2018-09-1708
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Michele Temmel, 6 S. Second Street, #305, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jason Glenn, appeals the consecutive nature of his sentence in the
Butler County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to two counts of violating a
protection order.
{¶ 2} Glenn was indicted on two counts of violating a protection order, which were
fifth-degree felonies because he had previously been convicted of violating a protection Butler CA2019-02-041
order. Glenn pled guilty to both charges. The trial court warned Glenn at the plea hearing
that because the instances charged occurred at separate times, the sentences could be
ordered consecutive to each other. The trial court set sentencing for a future date and
released Glenn on a recognizance bond.
{¶ 3} Before sentencing occurred, Glenn violated the terms of his bond by once again
violating the terms of the protection order. Glenn admitted the violation, and the trial court
revoked Glenn's bond. The trial court sentenced Glenn to nine months in prison for each of
the two counts, and ran the sentences consecutive to each other for an aggregate 18-month
prison term. Glenn now appeals the trial court's sentence, raising the following assignment
of error:
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. GLENN WHEN IT
SENTENCED HIM TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IN THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS.
{¶ 5} Glenn argues in his assignment of error that the trial court erred in ordering his
sentences to be served consecutively.
{¶ 6} We review a felony sentence under the standard set forth in R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St. 3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Pursuant to
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if there is clear
and convincing evidence that the record does not support a trial court's findings, or the
sentence is otherwise contrary to law. State v. Steger, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-03-059,
2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 9. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where a trial
court "considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in
R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant within the
permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-
Ohio-2890, ¶ 8. -2- Butler CA2019-02-041
{¶ 7} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court must engage in a three-step
analysis and state its findings before imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Kidwell-
Tilton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-05-069, 2017-Ohio-9094, ¶ 11. First, a trial court must
find that the consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or
to punish the offender. Id. Second, a trial court must find that the consecutive sentences are
not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public. Id. Third, a trial court must find that one of the following
applies:
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.
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.
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)(a)-(c).
{¶ 8} A trial court must make these findings at the sentencing hearing and then
incorporate them into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St. 3d 209, 2014-
Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. Nevertheless, a trial court is not required to give reasons explaining its
findings, nor is a "talismanic incantation" of the statute required for the sentence to be valid.
Id. A consecutive sentence is not contrary to law if the record is clear that the court engaged
in the sentencing analysis and made the required findings. State v. Littleton, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2016-03-060, 2016-Ohio-7544, ¶ 16.
-3- Butler CA2019-02-041
{¶ 9} After reviewing the record, we find the trial court's sentence was not contrary to
law. Glenn was convicted of two fifth-degree felonies, for which a possible sentencing range
of six to 12 months existed. R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). Thus, the trial court's nine-month sentence
for each conviction was within the relevant statutory range. The trial court also advised
Glenn of postrelease control and noted its consideration of the requisite statutory factors
contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial court's consideration of the relevant
statutory factors was also reflected in its sentencing entry.
{¶ 10} Regarding the consecutive sentence requirements, the trial court made the
necessary findings. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated,
The Court will find that consecutive terms are appropriate in this case, that the presumption as to concurrent terms has been rebutted by the defendant's continued disregard for the law, the Court's orders; taking into consideration as well that the defendant did not stay away from the victim, even during the time he was out on bond. The Court had to revoke the bond. I'll find that consecutive sentences are necessary to adequately protect the public and punish the defendant and are not disproportionate. I'll find that the offender's criminal history, the defendant's criminal history shows that consecutive terms are needed to protect the public.
{¶ 11} Additionally, the trial court found that Glenn's violations occurred while he was
subject to sanctions from the Hamilton Municipal Court, also related to violating a protection
order. Again, the trial court included its findings regarding the consecutive sentence statutory
factors within its sentencing entry. Thus, the trial court abided by the statutory requirements
regarding consideration of factors and findings specific to consecutive sentences and its
sentence was not contrary to law.
{¶ 12} We also find that the trial court's sentence is supported by the record. Glenn's
criminal history included multiple instances of violating a protection order, and he violated the
terms of the protection order while on bond for the current two charges and while he was
under sanction from another court for violating the terms of a protection order. Glenn had a -4- Butler CA2019-02-041
notable history of domestic violence, drug-related charges, and other misdemeanor
convictions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Glenn, 2019-Ohio-3949.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-02-041
: OPINION - vs - 9/30/2019 :
JASON E. GLENN, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2018-09-1708
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Michele Temmel, 6 S. Second Street, #305, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jason Glenn, appeals the consecutive nature of his sentence in the
Butler County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to two counts of violating a
protection order.
{¶ 2} Glenn was indicted on two counts of violating a protection order, which were
fifth-degree felonies because he had previously been convicted of violating a protection Butler CA2019-02-041
order. Glenn pled guilty to both charges. The trial court warned Glenn at the plea hearing
that because the instances charged occurred at separate times, the sentences could be
ordered consecutive to each other. The trial court set sentencing for a future date and
released Glenn on a recognizance bond.
{¶ 3} Before sentencing occurred, Glenn violated the terms of his bond by once again
violating the terms of the protection order. Glenn admitted the violation, and the trial court
revoked Glenn's bond. The trial court sentenced Glenn to nine months in prison for each of
the two counts, and ran the sentences consecutive to each other for an aggregate 18-month
prison term. Glenn now appeals the trial court's sentence, raising the following assignment
of error:
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. GLENN WHEN IT
SENTENCED HIM TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IN THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS.
{¶ 5} Glenn argues in his assignment of error that the trial court erred in ordering his
sentences to be served consecutively.
{¶ 6} We review a felony sentence under the standard set forth in R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St. 3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Pursuant to
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if there is clear
and convincing evidence that the record does not support a trial court's findings, or the
sentence is otherwise contrary to law. State v. Steger, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-03-059,
2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 9. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where a trial
court "considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in
R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant within the
permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-
Ohio-2890, ¶ 8. -2- Butler CA2019-02-041
{¶ 7} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court must engage in a three-step
analysis and state its findings before imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Kidwell-
Tilton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-05-069, 2017-Ohio-9094, ¶ 11. First, a trial court must
find that the consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or
to punish the offender. Id. Second, a trial court must find that the consecutive sentences are
not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public. Id. Third, a trial court must find that one of the following
applies:
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.
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.
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)(a)-(c).
{¶ 8} A trial court must make these findings at the sentencing hearing and then
incorporate them into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St. 3d 209, 2014-
Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. Nevertheless, a trial court is not required to give reasons explaining its
findings, nor is a "talismanic incantation" of the statute required for the sentence to be valid.
Id. A consecutive sentence is not contrary to law if the record is clear that the court engaged
in the sentencing analysis and made the required findings. State v. Littleton, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2016-03-060, 2016-Ohio-7544, ¶ 16.
-3- Butler CA2019-02-041
{¶ 9} After reviewing the record, we find the trial court's sentence was not contrary to
law. Glenn was convicted of two fifth-degree felonies, for which a possible sentencing range
of six to 12 months existed. R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). Thus, the trial court's nine-month sentence
for each conviction was within the relevant statutory range. The trial court also advised
Glenn of postrelease control and noted its consideration of the requisite statutory factors
contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial court's consideration of the relevant
statutory factors was also reflected in its sentencing entry.
{¶ 10} Regarding the consecutive sentence requirements, the trial court made the
necessary findings. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated,
The Court will find that consecutive terms are appropriate in this case, that the presumption as to concurrent terms has been rebutted by the defendant's continued disregard for the law, the Court's orders; taking into consideration as well that the defendant did not stay away from the victim, even during the time he was out on bond. The Court had to revoke the bond. I'll find that consecutive sentences are necessary to adequately protect the public and punish the defendant and are not disproportionate. I'll find that the offender's criminal history, the defendant's criminal history shows that consecutive terms are needed to protect the public.
{¶ 11} Additionally, the trial court found that Glenn's violations occurred while he was
subject to sanctions from the Hamilton Municipal Court, also related to violating a protection
order. Again, the trial court included its findings regarding the consecutive sentence statutory
factors within its sentencing entry. Thus, the trial court abided by the statutory requirements
regarding consideration of factors and findings specific to consecutive sentences and its
sentence was not contrary to law.
{¶ 12} We also find that the trial court's sentence is supported by the record. Glenn's
criminal history included multiple instances of violating a protection order, and he violated the
terms of the protection order while on bond for the current two charges and while he was
under sanction from another court for violating the terms of a protection order. Glenn had a -4- Butler CA2019-02-041
notable history of domestic violence, drug-related charges, and other misdemeanor
convictions.
{¶ 13} Glenn's criminal history, and specifically his inability to stay away from those
protected by valid court orders, demonstrates the need to protect the public from Glenn's
future criminal activity. Moreover, Glenn's commission of multiple violations even though he
was sanctioned by another court for similar activity also demonstrates the fact that Glenn
refused to curtail his criminal activity, thus necessitating the trial court to protect the public
from Glenn's future crimes.
{¶ 14} After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court's sentence was not
contrary to law and is otherwise supported by the record. As such, Glenn's assignment of
error is overruled.
{¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-5-