[Cite as State v. Richmond, 2025-Ohio-2393.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 17-24-15 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CLARENCE W. RICHMOND, JR., OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Shelby County Common Pleas Court Criminal Division Trial Court No. 23CR000251
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 7, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Michael J. Scarpelli for Appellant
Michael P. Doyle, Jr. for Appellee Case No. 17-24-15
WALDICK, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Clarence Richmond, Jr. (“Richmond”), appeals
the judgment of sentence entered against him in the Shelby County Court of
Common Pleas on December 2, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Procedural History and Relevant Facts
{¶2} This case originated on November 30, 2023, when a Shelby County
grand jury returned a 9-count indictment against Richmond, in which each count
contained a separate charge of Sexual Battery, a third-degree felony in violation of
R.C. 2907.03(A)(5).
{¶3} The charges in the indictment stemmed from a sexual relationship that
Richmond engaged in over the course of many years with his live-in girlfriend’s
daughter, for whom Richmond served as a surrogate step-father. Richmond’s
girlfriend, the child’s mother, also participated with Richmond in the sexual activity
involving her daughter. The sexual activity at issue began when the victim was 13
years of age and continued until she was 21. Richmond twice impregnated the
victim. The first pregnancy occurred when the victim was 15, and resulted in a
miscarriage. The second pregnancy occurred when the victim was 17, and resulted
in a child being born to the teenaged victim.
{¶4} On December 4, 2023, an arraignment was held and Richmond entered
an initial plea of not guilty to all counts in the indictment.
-2- Case No. 17-24-15
{¶5} On December 21, 2023, a superseding indictment was filed. That
indictment contained the same nine charges set forth in the original indictment, but
added nine additional counts. In each of the additional nine counts, being Counts
10 through 18, Richmond was charged with Rape, a first-degree felony in violation
of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2).
{¶6} On December 27, 2023, an arraignment was held on the superseding
indictment and Richmond pled not guilty to all counts of that indictment.
{¶7} On October 22, 2024, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,
Richmond entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment
and, in exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining counts. The trial court
accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation.
{¶8} On December 2, 2024, a sentencing hearing was held. Richmond was
sentenced to a prison term of sixty months on each count, with the two prison terms
ordered to be served consecutively. Later that same date, the trial court journalized
its sentencing decision.
{¶9} On December 4, 2024, Richmond filed the instant appeal, in which he
raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.
-3- Case No. 17-24-15
{¶10} In the sole assignment of error, Richmond argues that the imposition
of consecutive sentences was not supported by the record in this case.
{¶11} The standard of review in this sentencing appeal is whether the
sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-
1002; R.C. 2953.08. The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited sentencing
review by holding that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not provide a basis for an
appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is
not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-
Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the
statutory range. State v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-1768, ¶ 9 (3d Dist). “A sentence
imposed within the statutory range is not contrary to law as long as the trial court
considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing contained in R.C.
2929.11 and the sentencing factors contained in R.C. 2929.12. Id., citing State v.
Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.).
{¶12} In order to impose consecutive sentences, “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, syllabus.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:
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
-4- Case No. 17-24-15
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.
{¶13} When reviewing consecutive sentences on appeal, “[t]he plain
language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court’s
consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court’s findings must be upheld unless
those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.” State v.
Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5.
{¶14} In the instant case, the trial court made findings pursuant to R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(b) in support of the consecutive sentences, and Richmond does not
contest that on appeal. Additionally, upon reviewing the entire record before us, we
cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s
findings with regard to consecutive sentences. The record is replete with factors
-5- Case No. 17-24-15
that support consecutive sentences, including the fact that Richmond has two prior
felony convictions, for which he served two separate prison terms; that the two
crimes to which he pled guilty in this case involved a child who was 13 and 14 years
old at the time of the offenses; that the criminal conduct at issue in Counts 1 and 2
occurred on a regular basis over the course of two years; that Richmond did not
seem to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, as he completely failed to
acknowledge that he did anything wrong; and that Richmond blamed the victim for
causing the situation that led to him being prosecuted. Those facts, and the other
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Richmond, 2025-Ohio-2393.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 17-24-15 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CLARENCE W. RICHMOND, JR., OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Shelby County Common Pleas Court Criminal Division Trial Court No. 23CR000251
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 7, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Michael J. Scarpelli for Appellant
Michael P. Doyle, Jr. for Appellee Case No. 17-24-15
WALDICK, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Clarence Richmond, Jr. (“Richmond”), appeals
the judgment of sentence entered against him in the Shelby County Court of
Common Pleas on December 2, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Procedural History and Relevant Facts
{¶2} This case originated on November 30, 2023, when a Shelby County
grand jury returned a 9-count indictment against Richmond, in which each count
contained a separate charge of Sexual Battery, a third-degree felony in violation of
R.C. 2907.03(A)(5).
{¶3} The charges in the indictment stemmed from a sexual relationship that
Richmond engaged in over the course of many years with his live-in girlfriend’s
daughter, for whom Richmond served as a surrogate step-father. Richmond’s
girlfriend, the child’s mother, also participated with Richmond in the sexual activity
involving her daughter. The sexual activity at issue began when the victim was 13
years of age and continued until she was 21. Richmond twice impregnated the
victim. The first pregnancy occurred when the victim was 15, and resulted in a
miscarriage. The second pregnancy occurred when the victim was 17, and resulted
in a child being born to the teenaged victim.
{¶4} On December 4, 2023, an arraignment was held and Richmond entered
an initial plea of not guilty to all counts in the indictment.
-2- Case No. 17-24-15
{¶5} On December 21, 2023, a superseding indictment was filed. That
indictment contained the same nine charges set forth in the original indictment, but
added nine additional counts. In each of the additional nine counts, being Counts
10 through 18, Richmond was charged with Rape, a first-degree felony in violation
of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2).
{¶6} On December 27, 2023, an arraignment was held on the superseding
indictment and Richmond pled not guilty to all counts of that indictment.
{¶7} On October 22, 2024, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,
Richmond entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment
and, in exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining counts. The trial court
accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation.
{¶8} On December 2, 2024, a sentencing hearing was held. Richmond was
sentenced to a prison term of sixty months on each count, with the two prison terms
ordered to be served consecutively. Later that same date, the trial court journalized
its sentencing decision.
{¶9} On December 4, 2024, Richmond filed the instant appeal, in which he
raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.
-3- Case No. 17-24-15
{¶10} In the sole assignment of error, Richmond argues that the imposition
of consecutive sentences was not supported by the record in this case.
{¶11} The standard of review in this sentencing appeal is whether the
sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-
1002; R.C. 2953.08. The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited sentencing
review by holding that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not provide a basis for an
appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is
not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-
Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the
statutory range. State v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-1768, ¶ 9 (3d Dist). “A sentence
imposed within the statutory range is not contrary to law as long as the trial court
considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing contained in R.C.
2929.11 and the sentencing factors contained in R.C. 2929.12. Id., citing State v.
Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.).
{¶12} In order to impose consecutive sentences, “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, syllabus.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:
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
-4- Case No. 17-24-15
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.
{¶13} When reviewing consecutive sentences on appeal, “[t]he plain
language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court’s
consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court’s findings must be upheld unless
those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.” State v.
Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5.
{¶14} In the instant case, the trial court made findings pursuant to R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(b) in support of the consecutive sentences, and Richmond does not
contest that on appeal. Additionally, upon reviewing the entire record before us, we
cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s
findings with regard to consecutive sentences. The record is replete with factors
-5- Case No. 17-24-15
that support consecutive sentences, including the fact that Richmond has two prior
felony convictions, for which he served two separate prison terms; that the two
crimes to which he pled guilty in this case involved a child who was 13 and 14 years
old at the time of the offenses; that the criminal conduct at issue in Counts 1 and 2
occurred on a regular basis over the course of two years; that Richmond did not
seem to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, as he completely failed to
acknowledge that he did anything wrong; and that Richmond blamed the victim for
causing the situation that led to him being prosecuted. Those facts, and the other
facts of the case, fully support the findings made by the trial court in support of
consecutive sentences.
{¶15} In sum, when considering the record as a whole, we do not find that
Richmond has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that his consecutive
sentences are clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Therefore, the assignment
of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant, Clarence
Richmond, Jr., in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Shelby
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
MILLER and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
-6- Case No. 17-24-15
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is
overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
Juergen A. Waldick, Judge
Mark C. Miller, Judge
John R. Willamowski, Judge
DATED: /jlm
-7-