State v. Tinker

2024 Ohio 1740

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 6, 2024
• Docket: 2023-A-0068
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Tinker, 2024-Ohio-1740.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-A-0068

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

HEATHER ANN TINKER, Trial Court No. 2021 CR 00395 Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Decided: May 6, 2024 Judgment: Affirmed

Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Mark Majer, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Edward M. Heindel, 2200 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Heather Ann Tinker, appeals from the judgment of the

Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing her for Tampering with Evidence,

Obstructing Justice, and Gross Abuse of a Corpse. For the following reasons, we affirm

the judgment of the lower court.

{¶2} On October 22, 2021, Tinker was indicted by the Ashtabula County Grand

Jury for Tampering with Evidence, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C.

2921.12(A)(1) and (2); Obstructing Justice, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.32(A)(5); and Gross Abuse of a Corpse, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation

of R.C. 2927.01(B).

{¶3} A trial was held in 2022. Evidence was presented that Tinker’s boyfriend,

Daniel Taylor, killed his roommate, Crystal Garney, and pled guilty to murder. Testimony

demonstrated that after the murder, Tinker assisted in moving and hiding Garney’s body

by bringing plastic to Taylor to wrap up her body and by helping Taylor place the body in

the back of a truck. It further established that Tinker was present when Garney’s body

was placed in a wooded area and covered with pallets. Testimony established that Tinker

denied knowledge of Garney’s death when questioned by police and made statements

regarding her whereabouts that were inconsistent with other evidence.

{¶4} A sentencing hearing was held on October 12, 2022. Defense counsel

stated Tinker maintained she had not committed the acts for which she was found guilty

but accepted the verdict. Counsel argued she had “minimal” involvement in the crime, no

felony adult criminal record, and has struggled with substance abuse. Tinker’s friend

testified regarding her character. The victim’s daughter spoke and emphasized the fear

of not knowing where her mother was for five days. She expressed anger about Tinker

dumping the body and then returning to the victim’s house to make breakfast. The victim’s

ex-husband discussed the pain that had been caused to her children and her parents.

The State requested the maximum sentence. The court found that Tinker was

unremorseful and took note of the “cold-blooded” nature of the murder. It ordered Tinker

to serve consecutive terms for the offenses.

{¶5} Tinker appealed her sentence. On appeal, this court held that the trial court

failed to make all of the required consecutive sentencing findings at the sentencing

Case No. 2023-A-0068 hearing, vacated the sentence, and remanded with instructions for the court to resentence

Tinker and make required statutory findings if consecutive sentences were ordered. State

v. Tinker, 2023-Ohio-3216, 224 N.E.3d 579, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.).

{¶6} A resentencing hearing was held on October 18, 2023. The defense

renewed its argument on sentencing and Tinker spoke on her own behalf, stating that she

was remorseful for the victim and for the fact that Tinker’s family now has to take care of

her children. Tinker indicated that her boyfriend had convinced her that he had not killed

the victim and did not know the seriousness of the incident until it was too late. The State

requested that the court take notice of the statements of the victim’s family from the prior

sentencing and reimpose its sentence.

{¶7} The court indicated that Tinker had shown no remorse during the trial and

sentencing and “seemed to think it was a big waste of your time.” In issuing its sentence,

it reviewed the facts of the crime, including the manner in which the body was disposed,

left beside railroad tracks with pallets piled on her, and the fact that Tinker returned to the

victim’s house, spent the night there, and “made breakfast like it was no big deal.” It

emphasized her dishonesty while the family was trying to locate the victim.

{¶8} The court ordered Tinker to serve a term of three years in prison for

Tampering with Evidence, three years for Obstructing Justice, and one year for Gross

Abuse of a Corpse, to be served consecutively for a total term of seven years. At the

sentencing hearing, the court found multiple offenses were committed as a course of

conduct and caused great and unusual harm, “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 [Tinker’s] conduct; and all of that is necessary to punish [her], all of that is

Case No. 2023-A-0068 necessary to protect the public.” The court issued a Judgment Entry memorializing its

sentence and including consecutive sentencing findings.

{¶9} Tinker timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:

{¶10} “The record did not support the consecutive sentence findings that were

made.”

{¶11} Tinker argues that the record did not support the consecutive sentencing

findings made by the trial court, arguing that there “is little, if any evidence” supporting

consecutive sentences given her limited criminal history, the fact that her boyfriend

committed the murder, and her expression of remorse.

{¶12} “The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence] shall review the record,

including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing

court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “The standard to be applied is the standard set forth in the

statute: an appellate court has the authority to increase, reduce, otherwise modify, or

vacate a sentence only after it has reviewed the entire trial-court record and ‘clearly and

convincingly f[ound] either * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s

findings under [certain statutes including R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]’ or ‘that the sentence is

otherwise contrary to law.’” State v. Jones, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2024-Ohio-1083, __ N.E.3d

__, ¶ 13, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 51, 2016-Ohio-

1002, 659 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1 (“an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence

on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not

support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes”).

{¶13} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), separate prison terms for multiple offenses

may be ordered to be served consecutively if the court finds it is “necessary to protect the

Case No. 2023-A-0068 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 finds any of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) factors are

present. The pertinent R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) factor here is (b): “[a]t 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 * * * adequately

reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.”

{¶14} “To impose consecutive terms, the 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. Elliott, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2021-T-0045, 2023-

Ohio-412, ¶ 9, citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d

659, ¶ 37. “The trial court has no obligation * * * to engage in a ‘word-for-word recitation’

of the language in the statute or to set forth its reasons to support its findings, as long as

they are discernible in the record.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Cozzone, 2018-Ohio-2249,

114 N.E.3d 601, ¶ 27 (11th Dist.).

{¶15} As an initial matter, Tinker does not challenge that the court made the

required findings for ordering consecutive sentences. We observe that the court made

additional findings on remand. At the resentencing hearing, it made the R.C.

2929.14(C)(4)(b) finding and found that the sentences were necessary to protect the

public and punish the offender. While it did not make a specific finding at the hearing that

the sentence was not disproportionate to Tinker’s conduct and the danger posed, its

findings on this issue were discernable from the record. Cozzone at ¶ 27. This court has

Case No. 2023-A-0068 found the proportionality requirement satisfied where the court demonstrated that it

considered the proportionality of consecutive sentences by “look[ing] at the conduct of

the defendant in committing the offense and weighed it with other factors, including his

lack of remorse.” State v. Campbell, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2023-T-0041, 2023-Ohio-

4597, ¶ 14.

{¶16} We further hold that the court’s consecutive sentencing findings were

supported by the record. Multiple offenses were committed in a course of conduct of

hiding the murder of the victim and misleading police. Evidence was in the record as to

the impact of these crimes on the victim’s family, who were attempting to locate her after

she had been killed. The nature of the offenses, involvement in moving the body and

lying to the police to avoid detection, showed a disregard for the victim and her family and

demonstrated a danger to the community, particularly when considered in conjunction

with Tinker’s past criminal record and the lack of remorse the court found she exhibited.

{¶17} Tinker argues that the consecutive sentences were improper given her lack

of a felony record and that this “was her first serious encounter with the courts.” According

to the PSI, she has several prior misdemeanor convictions for Harassment, Possession

of Drugs, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, in addition to multiple drug-related

charges which were subsequently dismissed but are properly considered. See State v.

Tillis, 2023-Ohio-673, 210 N.E.3d 25, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.) (the sentencing court is permitted

to consider charges against a defendant in ordering consecutive sentences even if a

defendant is not ultimately convicted). The fact that she has several misdemeanors was

a relevant consideration in determining the danger she poses to the public and the court

noted her record at the sentencing hearing. Further, that she did not commit prior felonies

Case No. 2023-A-0068 did not preclude a finding that consecutive sentences were warranted. See State v.

Hoyle, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2022-L-103, 2023-Ohio-3217, ¶ 25 (a criminal record

consisting only of misdemeanors did not prohibit the order of consecutive sentences).

{¶18} Tinker also argues that she expressed remorse for her actions. While it is

accurate that she apologized at the resentencing hearing, the court did not find her

remorse to be genuine, finding that she showed no remorse at her trial and sentencing

and “seemed to think it was a big waste of [her] time.” “[T]he trial court is in the best

position to determine the genuineness of the remorse expressed by a defendant.” State

v. Anthony, 2019-Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13, ¶ 151 (11th Dist.). The court’s finding that

there was a lack of remorse was not unsupported by the record and was a relevant

consideration in its consecutive sentencing analysis. See State v. Moore, 6th Dist. Erie

No. E-22-051, 2023-Ohio-3834, ¶ 26 (defendant’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take

responsibility for his actions * * * are appropriate factors to consider in the consecutive-

sentence calculus”).

{¶19} Finally, Tinker argues that she did not commit the murder and “she had

been convinced by her boyfriend that the victim was not actually dead.” The court made

specific findings, and the record indicated, that the seriousness of the offense was not

just committing the murder but also removing and hiding the body and being dishonest

with police, delaying discovery of the victim’s death. To the extent she argues she was

convinced the victim was not dead, she was convicted for assisting in moving the victim’s

body, indicating awareness of the victim’s death. She gave statements to police after the

body had been moved which were inconsistent with other evidence gathered by police,

hindering the investigation and causing harm to the victim’s family. These facts supported

Case No. 2023-A-0068 the consecutive sentences.

{¶20} The sole assignment of error is without merit.

{¶21} For the foregoing reasons, Tinker’s consecutive sentences for Tampering

with Evidence, Obstructing Justice, and Gross Abuse of a Corpse in the Ashtabula County

Court of Common Pleas are affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2023-A-0068