[Cite as State v. Montague, 2012-Ohio-5512.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98135
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
GEORGE MONTAGUE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-547619
BEFORE: Cooney, J., Jones, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 29, 2012
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Richard A. Neff
614 W. Superior Ave.
The Rockefeller Building
Suite 1300
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Ronni Ducoff
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor, Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, George Montague (“Montague”), appeals his sentence
for two counts of gross sexual imposition. Finding no merit to this appeal, we affirm.
{¶2} In March 2011, Montague was charged with kidnapping, rape, and gross
sexual imposition. Both the rape and the gross sexual imposition charges contained
sexually violent predator specifications.
{¶3} In February 2012, Montague pled guilty to an amended indictment of two
counts of gross sexual imposition. The State dismissed the kidnapping charge, as well
as the specifications. That same month, Montague was sentenced to five years on the
first count and three years on the second, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate
sentence of eight years in prison.
{¶4} Montague now appeals, arguing in his sole assignment of error that the
consecutive sentences were excessive and unlawful.
{¶5} The General Assembly recently amended former R.C. 2929.14(E)(4),
renumbered R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and enacted new language requiring fact-finding for
consecutive sentences. Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86.1 The revisions to the felony sentencing
H.B. 86 took effect on September 30, 2011, and Montague was sentenced in February
1
2012. Therefore, the trial court was required to sentence him pursuant to the revisions contained in
H.B. 86.
statutes under H.B. 86 now require a trial court to make specific findings when imposing
consecutive sentences.
{¶6} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides, in relevant part:
(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 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.
{¶7} The trial court articulated the appropriate findings required by R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) both on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry of
conviction and sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court referred to its review
of the presentence investigation and heard from the victim and the defendant. The court
noted that it had considered all of the factors required by law. The court found that
consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the crimes committed and were
necessary to punish Montague based on the seriousness of the conduct and the harm to the
victim. The court stated:
The Court has considered the seriousness factors. We could list them by
order in statute, but this crime involved the destruction of the childhood of
the defendant’s own daughter and for that she has received a life sentence.
This is a very serious crime, GSI. It’s not rape, there was a plea
agreement, but the facts are as they are detailed in the PSI.
***
I do find consecutive sentences to be necessary in this case. The harm
inflicted upon a member of your own family, your daughter, was so grave
and unusual that a single term of five years does not adequately reflect the
seriousness of the conduct.
{¶8} Based on the record, we find that the trial court complied with R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) in sentencing Montague to consecutive sentences.
{¶9} Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶10} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of 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. The defendant’s conviction having
been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. 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.
______________________________________________
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR