[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2013-Ohio-372.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98354
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
RYAN JACKSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-554025
BEFORE: Jones, P.J., Keough, J., and Blackmon, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 7, 2013 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Robert L. Tobik Cuyahoga County Public Defender
BY: John T. Martin Assistant Public Defender 310 Lakeside Avenue Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: T. Allan Regas Blaise D. Thomas Assistant County Prosecutors The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ryan Jackson appeals his ten-year sentence, that was
imposed after a bench trial in which the court found him guilty of two counts of sexual
battery, felonies of the third degree. We affirm.
I. Procedural History
{¶2} In September 2011, Jackson was charged with two counts of kidnapping and
three counts of rape. The indictment named a single victim, who was eight years old at
the time of the alleged offenses.
{¶3} After negotiations with the state, Jackson pleaded guilty to amended charges
under Counts 2 and 5, those being sexual battery. The remaining counts of the
indictment were dismissed.
{¶4} The trial court sentenced Jackson to the maximum term of five years on each
count, and ordered that the terms be served consecutively. Jackson’s sole assignment of
error reads as follows: “The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences when it
failed to make findings required by R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)1 with reasons in support thereof.”
II. Law and Analysis
{¶5} The Ohio Supreme Court has identified a two-step process for appellate
review of felony sentences. State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896
N.E.2d 124, ¶ 14. First, we must determine whether a sentence is contrary to law. Id.
Then, if the sentence was not contrary to law, we review to determine whether the trial
1 The correct provision is R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). court abused its discretion in selecting sentences within the range permitted by statute.
Id. at ¶ 17.
{¶6} Jackson first contends that the trial court was required to first consider
imposing concurrent terms, and failed to do so. But the court did consider that the
purpose of its sentence, in part, was to
punish the offender using the minimum sanctions the court determines accomplishes those purposes without undue or unnecessary burden on the state and local government resources. Sentencing tr. 40. Jackson’s contention that the trial court did not consider imposing
concurrent sentences first, therefore, is without merit.
{¶7} Jackson next contends that the trial court did not make the required findings
for the imposition of consecutive sentences. With the enactment of Am.Sub.H.B. No.
86, effective September 30, 2011, the General Assembly has revived the requirement that
trial courts make findings before imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C).
State v. Bonner, 8th Dist. No. 97747, 2012-Ohio-2931, ¶ 5. Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),
in imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court must first find that the sentence is
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender. Next, the
trial court must 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.
{¶8} Finally, the trial court must find that at least one of the following applies: (1)
the offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while awaiting trial or
sentencing, while under a sanction imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, or
2929.18, or while under postrelease control for a prior offense; (2) 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 offenses 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; or (3) 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).
{¶9} 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, *10 (Nov. 24, 2000). It must, however, be clear from the
record that the trial court actually made the findings required by statute. 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.
{¶10} Thus, in reviewing whether a trial court complied with the statutory
requirements for imposing consecutive sentences, this court has construed statements
made by the trial court to equate to findings. See State v. Redd, 8th Dist. No. 98064,
2012-Ohio-5417, ¶ 16.
{¶11} The trial court stated the following in sentencing Jackson to consecutive
terms:
I mean to me this is the worst form of the offense. If there’s any mitigation, in my view I guess it would be [Jackson’s] age, that he * * * alleges that he was molested when he was six years old by a babysitter.
But the court has considered all the relevant seriousness, recidivism factors, overriding principles and purposes of felony sentencing, namely to protect the public from future crimes by the offender, and also punish the offender using the minimum sanctions the court determines accomplishes those purposes without undue or unnecessary burden on the state and local government sources.
* * * [T]he details in this case are just horrific. The defendant now is 22. It’s my understanding that the age of the victim was eight, and that he participated in * * * the most extensive sexual acts * * * with this child.
He does have a prior record. If you look at the sexual offender test they provided, they indicated that he had a five years 33 percent chance of * * * reoffending, and 10 years 38 percent, and 15 years 40 percent chance of reoffending.
* * * [T]his isn’t his first offense, because he has offenses as a juvenile and he’s had * * * a recent offense of domestic violence in 2008. That was a misdemeanor involving his mother.
I do believe that based on the age of the victim, the extensiveness of the sexual violations here, * * * it’s the worst form of the offense in my mind.
***
* * * I have to protect the public from this.
{¶12} Upon review, we find that the trial court satisfied the first required finding
that the sentence was necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the
offender. Specifically, the court stated, “I have to protect the public from this.” We
also find that the trial court made the second necessary finding that consecutive sentences
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2013-Ohio-372.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98354
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
RYAN JACKSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-554025
BEFORE: Jones, P.J., Keough, J., and Blackmon, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 7, 2013 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Robert L. Tobik Cuyahoga County Public Defender
BY: John T. Martin Assistant Public Defender 310 Lakeside Avenue Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: T. Allan Regas Blaise D. Thomas Assistant County Prosecutors The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ryan Jackson appeals his ten-year sentence, that was
imposed after a bench trial in which the court found him guilty of two counts of sexual
battery, felonies of the third degree. We affirm.
I. Procedural History
{¶2} In September 2011, Jackson was charged with two counts of kidnapping and
three counts of rape. The indictment named a single victim, who was eight years old at
the time of the alleged offenses.
{¶3} After negotiations with the state, Jackson pleaded guilty to amended charges
under Counts 2 and 5, those being sexual battery. The remaining counts of the
indictment were dismissed.
{¶4} The trial court sentenced Jackson to the maximum term of five years on each
count, and ordered that the terms be served consecutively. Jackson’s sole assignment of
error reads as follows: “The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences when it
failed to make findings required by R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)1 with reasons in support thereof.”
II. Law and Analysis
{¶5} The Ohio Supreme Court has identified a two-step process for appellate
review of felony sentences. State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896
N.E.2d 124, ¶ 14. First, we must determine whether a sentence is contrary to law. Id.
Then, if the sentence was not contrary to law, we review to determine whether the trial
1 The correct provision is R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). court abused its discretion in selecting sentences within the range permitted by statute.
Id. at ¶ 17.
{¶6} Jackson first contends that the trial court was required to first consider
imposing concurrent terms, and failed to do so. But the court did consider that the
purpose of its sentence, in part, was to
punish the offender using the minimum sanctions the court determines accomplishes those purposes without undue or unnecessary burden on the state and local government resources. Sentencing tr. 40. Jackson’s contention that the trial court did not consider imposing
concurrent sentences first, therefore, is without merit.
{¶7} Jackson next contends that the trial court did not make the required findings
for the imposition of consecutive sentences. With the enactment of Am.Sub.H.B. No.
86, effective September 30, 2011, the General Assembly has revived the requirement that
trial courts make findings before imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C).
State v. Bonner, 8th Dist. No. 97747, 2012-Ohio-2931, ¶ 5. Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),
in imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court must first find that the sentence is
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender. Next, the
trial court must 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.
{¶8} Finally, the trial court must find that at least one of the following applies: (1)
the offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while awaiting trial or
sentencing, while under a sanction imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, or
2929.18, or while under postrelease control for a prior offense; (2) 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 offenses 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; or (3) 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).
{¶9} 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, *10 (Nov. 24, 2000). It must, however, be clear from the
record that the trial court actually made the findings required by statute. 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.
{¶10} Thus, in reviewing whether a trial court complied with the statutory
requirements for imposing consecutive sentences, this court has construed statements
made by the trial court to equate to findings. See State v. Redd, 8th Dist. No. 98064,
2012-Ohio-5417, ¶ 16.
{¶11} The trial court stated the following in sentencing Jackson to consecutive
terms:
I mean to me this is the worst form of the offense. If there’s any mitigation, in my view I guess it would be [Jackson’s] age, that he * * * alleges that he was molested when he was six years old by a babysitter.
But the court has considered all the relevant seriousness, recidivism factors, overriding principles and purposes of felony sentencing, namely to protect the public from future crimes by the offender, and also punish the offender using the minimum sanctions the court determines accomplishes those purposes without undue or unnecessary burden on the state and local government sources.
* * * [T]he details in this case are just horrific. The defendant now is 22. It’s my understanding that the age of the victim was eight, and that he participated in * * * the most extensive sexual acts * * * with this child.
He does have a prior record. If you look at the sexual offender test they provided, they indicated that he had a five years 33 percent chance of * * * reoffending, and 10 years 38 percent, and 15 years 40 percent chance of reoffending.
* * * [T]his isn’t his first offense, because he has offenses as a juvenile and he’s had * * * a recent offense of domestic violence in 2008. That was a misdemeanor involving his mother.
I do believe that based on the age of the victim, the extensiveness of the sexual violations here, * * * it’s the worst form of the offense in my mind.
***
* * * I have to protect the public from this.
{¶12} Upon review, we find that the trial court satisfied the first required finding
that the sentence was necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the
offender. Specifically, the court stated, “I have to protect the public from this.” We
also find that the trial court made the second necessary finding that consecutive sentences
were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Jackson’s conduct and to the danger he
poses to the public. The trial court made several references to the seriousness of
Jackson’s crimes and, as just stated, found that he posed a danger from which the public needed to be protected. We similarly find that the trial court made a required finding
under the final part of the statute governing consecutive sentences, that being that his
history of criminal conduct demonstrates that a consecutive sentence was necessary to
protect the public from future crime by him.
{¶13} Thus, the sentence was not contrary to law, the first prong under Kalish.
Further, Jackson does not contend, and we do not find, that the trial court abused its
discretion in sentencing him, the second prong under Kalish. The record demonstrates
that Jackson, who was in his early twenties at the time of the offenses, engaged in
“extensive sexual acts,” with a then-eight-year-old girl. The record further demonstrates
that the victim and her family considered Jackson as part of their family, and he used his
position of trust to commit the crimes. The injury to the victim and her family was clear
from the record.
{¶14} In light of the above, Jackson’s sole assignment of error is without merit and
is overruled.
{¶15} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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. 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.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR