State v. Storer

2025 Ohio 1214

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: 2-24-07; 2-24-08
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Storer, 2025-Ohio-1214.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT AUGLAIZE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2-24-07 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

MATTHEW SCOTT STORER, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2-24-08 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

Appeals from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court Trial Court Nos. 2024-CR-53 and 2024-CR-94

Judgments Affirmed

Date of Decision: April 7, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Nicholas A. Catania for Appellant

Benjamin R. Elder for Appellee Case Nos. 2-24-07, 08

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Matthew Storer (“Storer”) brings these appeals

from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Auglaize County sentencing

him to maximum consecutive sentences. Storer challenges the imposition of the

sentences on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the judgments are affirmed.

{¶2} On May 30, 2024, the Auglaize County Grand Jury indicted Storer on

two counts of sexual battery (Counts 1 and 2) and three counts of unlawful sexual

conduct with a minor (Counts 3, 4, and 5) – all felonies of the third degree. The

assigned case number was 2024 CR 0053. Storer entered pleas of not guilty. On

August 2, 2024, Storer entered into a plea agreement with the State. Storer agreed

to enter guilty pleas to Counts 1, 3, and 4. In exchange the State agreed to dismiss

Counts 2 and 5 and to recommend that Storer be sentenced to 24 months on each

count to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of 72 months (6 years).

The trial court held a hearing and accepted the guilty pleas to Counts 1, 3, and 4,

dismissed Counts 2 and 5, and set the matter for sentencing at a later date.

{¶3} On September 4, 2024, The State filed a bill of information in case

number 2024 CR 0094 alleging that Storer had committed two counts of unlawful

sexual conduct with a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), (B)(3), felonies of the

third degree. Storer waived the right to an indictment and consented to prosecution

by information. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Storer agreed to enter pleas of guilty

and the State agreed to recommend a sentence of 2 years for each count. The State

-2- Case Nos. 2-24-07, 08

also agreed to remain silent as to whether the sentences should be served

consecutively or concurrently. On September 5, 2024, the trial court held a hearing

and accepted the guilty pleas of Storer to the charges in the bill of information.

{¶4} The trial court held a sentencing hearing for both cases on October 3,

2024. At that time, the trial court imposed a sentence of 60 months on each count

and ordered that all sentences be served consecutively for an aggregate prison term

of 180 months (15 years) in case number 2024 CR 53. In case number 2024 CR 94,

the trial court imposed prison terms of 60 months on each count and ordered them

to served consecutively to each other. The trial court also ordered that the sentence

in case number 2024 CR 94 be served consecutive to that imposed in case number

2024 CR 53 for an aggregate prison term of 300 months (25 years). Storer appeals

from these judgments and raises the following assignments of error on appeal.

First Assignment of Error

The trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to properly follow the sentencing criteria set forth in [R.C. 2929.14] resulting in [Storer] receiving a sentence which is contrary to law.

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court erred by issuing a consecutive sentencing judgment on the bill of information charges that differed from the consecutive sentence factors pronounced at the hearing.

-3- Case Nos. 2-24-07, 08

Sentencing Criteria

{¶5} Storer argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court

improperly applied the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 and failed to

properly consider the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C.

2929.11. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will only reverse a sentence

“if it determines 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. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002. “[A]n appellate court’s

authority to modify or vacate a sentence is limited to situations in which it concludes

that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under certain

specified statutes, not including R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-

Ohio-6729, ¶ 38. “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.” State v. Paxson, 2024-Ohio-2680, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.) quoting State v. Lane,

2022-Ohio-3775, ¶ 85 (3d Dist.).

{¶6} Storer does not argue that the trial court did not consider the purposes

and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 or the sentencing

factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. A review of the record shows that the trial court

did consider all it was required to consider. Instead, Storer disagrees with the

conclusions the trial court reached when imposing the sentence. “This Court,

-4- Case Nos. 2-24-07, 08

pursuant to Jones, lacks the authority to review the record to consider how a trial

court has applied the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C.

2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Paxson,

2024-Ohio-2680, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.). The sentence imposed on each count was within

the statutory range and the trial court did consider the purposes and principles of

felony sentencing as required by R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth

in R.C. 2929.12. As we cannot review how the trial court uses the evidence before

it when considering the statutory factors, we do not find the sentence contrary to

law. The assignment of error is overruled.

Consecutive Sentences

{¶7} Storer claims in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred

in imposing consecutive sentences. Before a trial court can impose consecutive

sentences, it must make certain findings.

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

-5- Case Nos. 2-24-07, 08

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. R.C. 2929.14(C). In making these findings, the trial court is not required to use the

exact words of the statute as long as the necessary findings can be found in the

record and are incorporated into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-

3177, ¶ 29. An appellate court may only modify consecutive sentences if the record

clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings. State v.

Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 13. “[A]n appellate court is directed that it must have

a firm belief or conviction that the record does not support the trial court’s findings

before it may increase, reduce or otherwise modify consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶

15.

{¶8} Storer argues in his brief that the findings of the trial court in its

judgment entry differ from those stated at the hearing. At the hearing, the trial court

made the following findings regarding consecutive sentences.

The Court finds that these multiple offenses were committed as part of a course of conduct, and the harm caused by these multiple offenses was so great and unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as a part of the courses of conduct adequately -6- Case Nos. 2-24-07, 08

reflects the seriousness of his conduct. The Court noting his prior offense of violence as a juvenile, and his other offenses as an adult demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. The Court finds that consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime and 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.

Tr. 15-16. The trial court later stated that Storer’s “history of criminal conduct

demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from

future crime by the offender.” Tr. 18. These findings, which were stated at the

hearing, were reiterated in the sentencing judgment entries.

{¶9} In his brief, Storer disagrees that the trial court’s findings support the

conclusion that consecutive sentences are appropriate. A review of the record shows

that the trial court’s findings are supported by the record. At the August 2, 2024

change of plea hearing, Storer admitted to engaging in sexual conduct with multiple

minors (ages 17, 14, and 13). These acts occurred over the span of five years. At

the plea hearing for the bill of information, Storer pled guilty to engaging in sexual

conduct with two additional victims, both age 14 at the time. The presentence

investigation indicated that Storer had a history of delinquent adjudications as a

juvenile and a history of misdemeanor offenses as an adult. Since the findings are

supported by the record, “[the record] does not overwhelmingly support a contrary

result concerning the imposition of consecutive sentences.” Gwynne at ¶ 18. The

second assignment of error is overruled.

-7- Case Nos. 2-24-07, 08

{¶10} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Auglaize

County are affirmed.

WALDICK, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.

/hls

-8-