[Cite as State v. Hudson, 2020-Ohio-3972.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : Nos. 108841 and 109011 v. :
DERRICK DEMETRIUS HUDSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 6, 2020
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-18-631112-A, CR-19-639316-A, and CR-19-639341-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy R. Troup, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher R. Fortunato, for appellant.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
Appellant Derrick D. Hudson appeals from a judgment of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that sentenced him to a total of 27 months
in prison in three separate cases. On appeal, Hudson argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive terms in two of the three cases. Having reviewed the record
and applicable law, we find no merit to the appeal and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Procedural History and Substantive Facts
On July 2, 2019, Hudson was sentenced on three separate cases after
entering a guilty plea in all three cases. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-18-631112-A, he
pleaded guilty to an offense of attempted carrying a concealed weapon, a fifth-degree
felony; in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-19-639316-A, drug possession, a fifth-degree
felony; and in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-19-639341-A, carrying a concealed weapon, a
fourth-degree felony.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted Hudson submitted
five letters for mitigation and a certificate showing he completed a concealed carry
class. Hudson’s counsel described him as a respectful and delightful young man and
he carried a gun to protect himself because he had been previously robbed at
gunpoint. Counsel also explained that the drug Hudson illegally possessed was
Percocet that belonged to his grandmother and he used it for his dental issues.
Counsel pointed out in addition that Hudson had completed one year of college and
was working with the mentally challenged for the past two years.
The prosecutor, however, portrayed Hudson differently, emphasizing
that Hudson was scheduled for trial for the first firearm case, CR-631112, in 2018,
but failed to appear on the day of trial and, while that case was pending, committed
additional offenses (CR-639316 and CR-639341). The prosecutor alleged that the document provided by Hudson to verify his employment with Open Hands of Caring
Penn Foundation was fraudulent; the telephone number for a purported supervisor
turned out to be the number of an acquaintance of Hudson. The prosecutor also
alleged that Hudson had referred to himself as a “Young Thug.”
The trial court sentenced Hudson to 11 months in prison in
CR-631112, the first firearm case; 11 months in prison in CR-639316, the drug
possession case; and 16 months in prison in CR-639341, the second gun offense.
The court ordered him to serve the prison terms for the two firearm cases
consecutively. The sentencing entry in CR-631112 and CR-639341 stated the court’s
findings for the consecutive terms imposed in these two cases:
[C]onsecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish defendant; that the consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and to the danger defendant poses to the public; and that, the defendant committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the defendant was awaiting trial or sentencing or was under community control or was under post-release control for a prior offense, or defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by defendant.
On appeal, Hudson raises one assignment of error for our review:
The trial court erred when it ordered two of the appellant’s sentences served consecutively in violation of R.C. 2929.14.
Hudson argues that, in light of his lack of any prior felony conviction
before these three cases, the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences
without giving reasons why consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the
public from future crimes or to punish him, or why the sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he would pose to
the public.
Analysis
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides that the trial court must find that
(1) consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender, (2) such sentences would not be disproportionate to the
seriousness of the conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and
(3) one of the following applies:
(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.
Before imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must make the
findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and incorporate those findings in the
sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d
659, ¶ 37; State v. Rapier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108583, 2020-Ohio-1611, ¶ 7. The
failure to make the findings renders the imposition of consecutive sentences contrary to law. State v. Gohagan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107948,
2019-Ohio-4070, ¶ 29.
Here, before imposing consecutive prison terms for the two firearm
cases (CR-631112 and CR-639341), the court made the findings as follows:
Case Number 631112 is going to be consecutive to Case Number 639341 because I believe it is necessary to protect the public from future crime and that it is not disproportionate to [the defendant’s] conduct, already having a trial date on a weapons case [the defendant] absconded from and then to have another weapons case come down. It’s not disproportionate. Your learned nothing from your first arrest.
Of course you committed one or more * * * of these offenses while you were awaiting trial, or while we were waiting for you to show up for trial, and you had already been indicted and had pre-trials already before the case of 639316 which the date of that offense was October of 2018. Of course by your testimony you weren’t even showing up for pre-trials and we didn’t know that. Therefore, the history of these three cases and your absconding from court all demonstrate that consecutive sentences are necessary in this case.
As reflected in the transcript, therefore, the trial court complied with
the statutory requirement and made the requisite findings necessary for consecutive
sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C). For the last finding, the court noted that
Hudson committed the first firearm offense on July 25, 2018, and he was arraigned
in that case on September 20, 2018.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Hudson, 2020-Ohio-3972.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : Nos. 108841 and 109011 v. :
DERRICK DEMETRIUS HUDSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 6, 2020
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-18-631112-A, CR-19-639316-A, and CR-19-639341-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy R. Troup, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher R. Fortunato, for appellant.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
Appellant Derrick D. Hudson appeals from a judgment of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that sentenced him to a total of 27 months
in prison in three separate cases. On appeal, Hudson argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive terms in two of the three cases. Having reviewed the record
and applicable law, we find no merit to the appeal and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Procedural History and Substantive Facts
On July 2, 2019, Hudson was sentenced on three separate cases after
entering a guilty plea in all three cases. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-18-631112-A, he
pleaded guilty to an offense of attempted carrying a concealed weapon, a fifth-degree
felony; in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-19-639316-A, drug possession, a fifth-degree
felony; and in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-19-639341-A, carrying a concealed weapon, a
fourth-degree felony.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted Hudson submitted
five letters for mitigation and a certificate showing he completed a concealed carry
class. Hudson’s counsel described him as a respectful and delightful young man and
he carried a gun to protect himself because he had been previously robbed at
gunpoint. Counsel also explained that the drug Hudson illegally possessed was
Percocet that belonged to his grandmother and he used it for his dental issues.
Counsel pointed out in addition that Hudson had completed one year of college and
was working with the mentally challenged for the past two years.
The prosecutor, however, portrayed Hudson differently, emphasizing
that Hudson was scheduled for trial for the first firearm case, CR-631112, in 2018,
but failed to appear on the day of trial and, while that case was pending, committed
additional offenses (CR-639316 and CR-639341). The prosecutor alleged that the document provided by Hudson to verify his employment with Open Hands of Caring
Penn Foundation was fraudulent; the telephone number for a purported supervisor
turned out to be the number of an acquaintance of Hudson. The prosecutor also
alleged that Hudson had referred to himself as a “Young Thug.”
The trial court sentenced Hudson to 11 months in prison in
CR-631112, the first firearm case; 11 months in prison in CR-639316, the drug
possession case; and 16 months in prison in CR-639341, the second gun offense.
The court ordered him to serve the prison terms for the two firearm cases
consecutively. The sentencing entry in CR-631112 and CR-639341 stated the court’s
findings for the consecutive terms imposed in these two cases:
[C]onsecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish defendant; that the consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and to the danger defendant poses to the public; and that, the defendant committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the defendant was awaiting trial or sentencing or was under community control or was under post-release control for a prior offense, or defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by defendant.
On appeal, Hudson raises one assignment of error for our review:
The trial court erred when it ordered two of the appellant’s sentences served consecutively in violation of R.C. 2929.14.
Hudson argues that, in light of his lack of any prior felony conviction
before these three cases, the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences
without giving reasons why consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the
public from future crimes or to punish him, or why the sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he would pose to
the public.
Analysis
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides that the trial court must find that
(1) consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender, (2) such sentences would not be disproportionate to the
seriousness of the conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and
(3) one of the following applies:
(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.
Before imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must make the
findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and incorporate those findings in the
sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d
659, ¶ 37; State v. Rapier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108583, 2020-Ohio-1611, ¶ 7. The
failure to make the findings renders the imposition of consecutive sentences contrary to law. State v. Gohagan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107948,
2019-Ohio-4070, ¶ 29.
Here, before imposing consecutive prison terms for the two firearm
cases (CR-631112 and CR-639341), the court made the findings as follows:
Case Number 631112 is going to be consecutive to Case Number 639341 because I believe it is necessary to protect the public from future crime and that it is not disproportionate to [the defendant’s] conduct, already having a trial date on a weapons case [the defendant] absconded from and then to have another weapons case come down. It’s not disproportionate. Your learned nothing from your first arrest.
Of course you committed one or more * * * of these offenses while you were awaiting trial, or while we were waiting for you to show up for trial, and you had already been indicted and had pre-trials already before the case of 639316 which the date of that offense was October of 2018. Of course by your testimony you weren’t even showing up for pre-trials and we didn’t know that. Therefore, the history of these three cases and your absconding from court all demonstrate that consecutive sentences are necessary in this case.
As reflected in the transcript, therefore, the trial court complied with
the statutory requirement and made the requisite findings necessary for consecutive
sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C). For the last finding, the court noted that
Hudson committed the first firearm offense on July 25, 2018, and he was arraigned
in that case on September 20, 2018. Less than a month later, while out on bond for
the firearm offense, he committed the drug offense on October 16, 2018. On
November 28, 2018, the day scheduled for the firearm case, he failed to appear for
trial and the court issued a capias. While the warrant was outstanding for his arrest
in the firearm case, he committed the second firearm offense on April 21, 2019. Although the trial court did not provide specific reasons for the first
two findings, in making the consecutive sentence findings, a trial court is not
required “to give reasons supporting its decision to impose consecutive sentences.”
Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, at ¶ 27. Rather, “as
long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in the correct
analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to support the
findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” Id. at ¶ 29. Here, the trial court
emphasized the egregious nature of Hudson’s conduct in disregarding the trial date
scheduled in the first firearm case and, while a warrant was issued for his arrest in
the case, committed another firearm offense. Our review of the transcript shows the
trial court engaged in the requisite consecutive-sentence analysis and the record
contains evidence to support the findings made by the court, and the trial court
properly incorporated its findings in its sentencing entries. Consequently, Hudson’s
sentence is not contrary to law.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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 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.
____________________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, A.J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR