[Cite as State v. Tate, 2015-Ohio-5260.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Nos. 102776 and 102777
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CHARLES TATE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Keough, P.J., and McCormack, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 17, 2015
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Rick L. Ferrara
2077 East 4th Street
Second Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Glen Ramdhan
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Justice Center - 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Charles Tate appeals his conviction in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos.
CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A, claiming that the trial court erred by imposing
consecutive sentences without making the required findings pursuant to R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). In both cases, at a hearing also resolving three other cases involving Tate
and for which no appeals were filed, Tate pleaded guilty to two counts of domestic
violence, felonies of the fourth degree. The trial court imposed a 16-month term of
imprisonment on one count and a 12-month term on the other, to be served concurrently.
In the final sentencing entry, the trial court noted that the prison term in Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-14-586700-A, not the subject of the current appeal, would be served consecutive
to the current two cases.
{¶2} We summarily overrule Tate’s sole assigned error challenging the imposition
of consecutive sentences in CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A. No consecutive
prison sentence was imposed in the current two appealed cases. The trial court ordered
the prison sentence in CR-14-586700-A to be served consecutive to the concurrent
sentences in CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A. Any challenge to the imposition of
consecutive service lies in CR-14-586700-A. State v. Nordstrom, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 101656, 2015-Ohio-1453, ¶ 28. Tate has not appealed that final sentence, and
therefore, we must overrule the assigned error. Tate’s conviction is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR
State v. Tate
Combined Opinion