State v. Oberschlake

2024 Ohio 2764

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 22, 2024
• Docket: CA2024-01-001
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Oberschlake, 2024-Ohio-2764.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-01-001

: OPINION - vs - 7/22/2024 :

DARRIN LESLIE OBERSCHLAKE, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2022 CR 00994

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Zachary Garrison, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Brian T. Goldberg, for appellant.

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} On October 4, 2023, Darrin Oberschlake pled guilty to four counts of

pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A),

second-degree felonies. The images and videos Oberschlake possessed and

disseminated showed children, some as young as toddlers, being sexually abused and

raped. On December 13, 2023, Oberschlake was sentenced to four years in prison on Clermont CA2024-01-001

Counts 1-3, and three years in prison on Count 4. The trial court imposed the sentences

consecutively for a total prison sentence of 15-17 years.1 Oberschlake timely appeals,

raising a single assignment of error for review:

{¶ 2} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

WHEN THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE TRIAL

COURT TO IMPOSE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.

{¶ 3} In his sole assignment of error, Oberschlake argues the trial court erred by

imposing consecutive prison terms. A felony sentence is reviewed under the standard in

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Warnock, 2024-Ohio-382, ¶ 64 (12th Dist.). That provision

states that an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence if the court finds by clear

and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under

relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. State v. Gable, 2024-

Ohio-293, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 4} A consecutive sentence is contrary to law where the trial court fails to make

the consecutive sentencing findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Wood,

2020-Ohio-422, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court must

engage in a three-step analysis and make certain findings before imposing consecutive

sentences. Id. Specifically, the trial court must find that (1) the consecutive sentence 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 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 post-

1. The trial court imposed an indefinite prison term under the Reagan Tokes Law, R.C. 2967.271, et seq.

-2- Clermont CA2024-01-001

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.

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

{¶ 5} "In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, 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." State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177,

¶ 37. While the trial court is not required to give reasons explaining these findings, it must

be clear from the record that the court engaged in the required sentencing analysis and

made the requisite findings. State v. Miller, 2022-Ohio-1438, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 6} In this appeal, Oberschlake does not dispute that the trial court made the

consecutive sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Instead, Oberschlake

argues that the record does not support the trial court's findings. Specifically,

Oberschlake argues:

1. Consecutive sentences were not necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish Mr. Oberschlake.

2. The lengthy sentence is also disproportionate to the seriousness of Mr. Oberschlake's conduct and the danger he poses to the public.

3. A single prison term would have adequately reflected the seriousness of his conduct.

During the sentencing hearing, Oberschlake stated that he knew his conduct was wrong

but that he struggled with an addiction to pornography. He argues on appeal that he has

-3- Clermont CA2024-01-001

accepted responsibility for his actions and "expressed true genuine remorse for what he

did." However, he also emphasizes, on more than one occasion, that he did not physically

harm any child. He casts the videos and images as mere symptoms of his addiction to

pornography. He also argues that he should have received a lesser prison sentence

because he had previously served in the military and because this was his first criminal

conviction.

{¶ 7} After a thorough review of the record, we find the trial court's consecutive

sentence findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. The

record instead fully supports the trial court's decision. As we have previously stated,

pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor is a serious offense and children are

seriously harmed by the mere possession of pornography in which they are depicted.

State v. Boggs, 2020-Ohio-2881, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). "[C]onsumers of child pornography

victimize the children depicted in child pornography by enabling and supporting the

continued production of child pornography, which entails continuous direct abuse and

victimization of child subjects." State v. Pearce, 2022-Ohio-2617, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 8} Despite claiming to accept full responsibility, Oberschlake attempts to

minimize his conduct by offering that he did not physically harm any child. However, that

argument is not appropriate mitigation and undercuts his claim that he has accepted

responsibility for his actions. State v. Fraley, 2022-Ohio-3270, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.). By

possessing and disseminating graphic images of minors being raped and sexually

abused, Oberschlake was participating in a scheme that enables and supports the

continued production of child pornography.

{¶ 9} The trial court ultimately determined that consecutive sentences were

appropriate in light of all relevant considerations. The record fully supports the trial court's

findings. Considering the foregoing, we find the trial court's sentencing decision was not

-4- Clermont CA2024-01-001

contrary to law and its decision to impose consecutive prison terms was appropriate.

Oberschlake's sole assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.

S. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

-5-