[Cite as State v. Grier, 2013-Ohio-1661.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98637
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CEDRIC GRIER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-552275
BEFORE: Blackmon, J., Boyle, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 25, 2013 -i-
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Rick L. Ferrara 2077 East 4th Street, Second Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44114
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Maxwell M. Martin Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
{¶1} Appellant Cedric Grier appeals his sentence and assigns the following error
for our review:
I. The trial court acted contrary to law when it imposed consecutive sentences without authority to do so under the Ohio Revised Code.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s
sentencing decision. The apposite facts follow.
{¶3} On July 20, 2011, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Grier on one
count of attempted murder, three counts of felonious assault, and four counts of
aggravated burglary, all with one and three-year firearm specifications attached. The
grand jury also indicted Grier on one count of having weapons under a disability. Grier
was on probation for four separate cases at the time he was indicted. On July 22, 2011,
Grier pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. Thereafter, numerous pretrials followed.
{¶4} On May 12, 2012, pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, Grier
pleaded guilty to amended charges of misdemeanor assault and a fourth-degree burglary.
In exchange, the state dismissed the remaining charges along with the attached firearm
specifications. The state recommended a sentence of time served for Grier, who had
been in jail for approximately 307 days by the time he pleaded guilty to the amended
charges.
{¶5} On June 8, 2012, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of six and 18
months for assault and burglary, respectively. Further, the trial court imposed a total of 28 months on the four separate cases for which Grier was on probation at the time the
instant charges occurred. Finally, the trial court ordered the combined sentences in the
separate cases to be served consecutively to the most recent case for a total prison term of
46 months.
Consecutive Sentences
{¶6} In the sole assigned error, Grier argues the trial court’s imposition of a
consecutive sentence was contrary to law.
{¶7} Preliminarily, we note, an appellate court must conduct a meaningful
review of the trial court’s sentencing decision. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 97579,
2012-Ohio-2508, ¶ 6, citing State v. Hites, 3d Dist. No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 7.
Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not
an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Goins, 8th Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263.
{¶8} An appellate court must “review the record, including the findings
underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” Id. If an
appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either that (1) “the record does not support
the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or (2) “the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law,” then “the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the
sentencing court for resentencing.” Id.
{¶9} Additionally, a sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated
to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing: (1) “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others,” and (2) “to punish the offender using the
minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes.” R.C.
2929.11(A). The sentence imposed shall also be “commensurate with and not
demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim,
and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶10} The General Assembly, through the enactment of H.B. 86, recently
amended Ohio’s sentencing statutes. Pertinent to this appeal, the revisions under H.B. 86
now require a trial court to make specific findings when imposing consecutive sentences.
Specifically, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides as follows:
(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any 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 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 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.
{¶11} According to this statute, a sentencing court must analyze whether
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public, punish the offender, are not
disproportionate, and make one additional finding. “A trial court satisfies this statutory
requirement when the record reflects that the court has engaged in the required analysis
and has selected the appropriate statutory criteria.” State v. Battle, 8th Dist. No. 98294,
2013-Ohio-816, citing Goins, supra.
{¶12} In making these findings, a trial court is not required to use “talismanic
words to comply with the guidelines and factors for sentencing.” State v. Brewer, 1st Dist.
No. C-000148, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5455 (Nov. 24, 2000). But it must be clear from
the record that the trial court actually made the findings required by statute. See State v.
Pierson, 1st Dist. No. C-970935, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3812 (Aug. 21, 1998). A trial
court satisfies this statutory requirement when the record reflects that the court has
engaged in the required analysis and has selected the appropriate statutory criteria. See
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 326, 1999-Ohio-110, 715 N.E.2d 131.
{¶13} In the instant case, in imposing the consecutive sentence, the trial court
specifically stated:
Now, I’ve imposed consecutive time. * * * However, the reason why I’m doing this is because I think that the harm is so great or unusual that a single term will not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and/or criminal history.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Grier, 2013-Ohio-1661.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98637
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CEDRIC GRIER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-552275
BEFORE: Blackmon, J., Boyle, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 25, 2013 -i-
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Rick L. Ferrara 2077 East 4th Street, Second Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44114
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Maxwell M. Martin Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
{¶1} Appellant Cedric Grier appeals his sentence and assigns the following error
for our review:
I. The trial court acted contrary to law when it imposed consecutive sentences without authority to do so under the Ohio Revised Code.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s
sentencing decision. The apposite facts follow.
{¶3} On July 20, 2011, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Grier on one
count of attempted murder, three counts of felonious assault, and four counts of
aggravated burglary, all with one and three-year firearm specifications attached. The
grand jury also indicted Grier on one count of having weapons under a disability. Grier
was on probation for four separate cases at the time he was indicted. On July 22, 2011,
Grier pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. Thereafter, numerous pretrials followed.
{¶4} On May 12, 2012, pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, Grier
pleaded guilty to amended charges of misdemeanor assault and a fourth-degree burglary.
In exchange, the state dismissed the remaining charges along with the attached firearm
specifications. The state recommended a sentence of time served for Grier, who had
been in jail for approximately 307 days by the time he pleaded guilty to the amended
charges.
{¶5} On June 8, 2012, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of six and 18
months for assault and burglary, respectively. Further, the trial court imposed a total of 28 months on the four separate cases for which Grier was on probation at the time the
instant charges occurred. Finally, the trial court ordered the combined sentences in the
separate cases to be served consecutively to the most recent case for a total prison term of
46 months.
Consecutive Sentences
{¶6} In the sole assigned error, Grier argues the trial court’s imposition of a
consecutive sentence was contrary to law.
{¶7} Preliminarily, we note, an appellate court must conduct a meaningful
review of the trial court’s sentencing decision. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 97579,
2012-Ohio-2508, ¶ 6, citing State v. Hites, 3d Dist. No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 7.
Specifically, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that our review of consecutive sentences is not
an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Goins, 8th Dist. No. 98256, 2013-Ohio-263.
{¶8} An appellate court must “review the record, including the findings
underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” Id. If an
appellate court clearly and convincingly finds either that (1) “the record does not support
the sentencing court’s findings under [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]” or (2) “the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law,” then “the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the
sentencing court for resentencing.” Id.
{¶9} Additionally, a sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated
to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing: (1) “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others,” and (2) “to punish the offender using the
minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes.” R.C.
2929.11(A). The sentence imposed shall also be “commensurate with and not
demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim,
and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶10} The General Assembly, through the enactment of H.B. 86, recently
amended Ohio’s sentencing statutes. Pertinent to this appeal, the revisions under H.B. 86
now require a trial court to make specific findings when imposing consecutive sentences.
Specifically, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides as follows:
(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any 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 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 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.
{¶11} According to this statute, a sentencing court must analyze whether
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public, punish the offender, are not
disproportionate, and make one additional finding. “A trial court satisfies this statutory
requirement when the record reflects that the court has engaged in the required analysis
and has selected the appropriate statutory criteria.” State v. Battle, 8th Dist. No. 98294,
2013-Ohio-816, citing Goins, supra.
{¶12} In making these findings, a trial court is not required to use “talismanic
words to comply with the guidelines and factors for sentencing.” State v. Brewer, 1st Dist.
No. C-000148, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5455 (Nov. 24, 2000). But it must be clear from
the record that the trial court actually made the findings required by statute. See State v.
Pierson, 1st Dist. No. C-970935, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3812 (Aug. 21, 1998). A trial
court satisfies this statutory requirement when the record reflects that the court has
engaged in the required analysis and has selected the appropriate statutory criteria. See
State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 326, 1999-Ohio-110, 715 N.E.2d 131.
{¶13} In the instant case, in imposing the consecutive sentence, the trial court
specifically stated:
Now, I’ve imposed consecutive time. * * * However, the reason why I’m doing this is because I think that the harm is so great or unusual that a single term will not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and/or criminal history. Therefore, a consecutive term is needed to protect the public. The defendant has been given opportunities time and again by this court to correct his ways. He has an extensive criminal record and an extensive juvenile criminal record. He started receiving cases from this court almost from the time he’s turned 21.
The court has tried repeatedly to get him to see the error of his ways; however, that has fallen on deaf ears time and again. In March 2011, the court indicated that it would not, you know tolerate any further violations of any of the community control. But, again, the defendant went out and in case number 525272 [sic] was involved in another serious offense. Tr. 107.
{¶14} A review of the above excerpt and the sentencing transcript as a whole
indicates that the trial court made thoughtful and extensive findings before imposing the
consecutive sentence. The trial court discussed the need to protect the public and punish
Grier. The trial court also addressed proportionality when it found that the harm was so
great or unusual that a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the
crime.
{¶15} Finally, the trial court indicated that Grier was on probation for four
separate cases when he committed the instant crimes. The trial court discussed its
repeated attempts to get Grier to see the errors of his ways, but lamented that it had fallen
on deaf ears. Based on the foregoing, we conclude the trial court fully met the statutory
requirements to impose consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we overrule the sole
assigned error.
{¶16} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR