[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2016-Ohio-440.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-14-040
Appellee Trial Court No. 2013CR0588
v.
Charles Wilson, Jr. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: February 5, 2016
*****
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Thomas A.
Matuszak and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys,
for appellee.
Joanna M. Orth, for appellant.
*****
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the Wood County Court of Common
Pleas that found appellant guilty of one count of theft and one count of receiving stolen
property following a plea of guilty. For the reasons below, this court affirms the
judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} The following undisputed facts are relevant to the issues raised on appeal.
On January 22, 2014, appellant was indicted on one count of theft in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2) and one count of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C.
2913.51(A) and (C). On April 22, 2014, appellant entered a guilty plea to both counts in
the indictment. A sentencing hearing was held on May 13, 2014, and the issues of
sentencing and restitution were addressed. At the conclusion of the hearing, appellant
was ordered to serve two consecutive 12-month sentences and to pay $6,700 restitution to
the victim of the theft.
{¶ 3} Appellant appeals, setting forth the following two assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error: The trial court erred to the prejudice of
defendant/appellant when it ordered restitution beyond the actual loss
suffered by the victim.
Second Assignment of Error: Defendant/appellant’s sentence should
be vacated as the trial court failed, as a matter of law, to make specific
findings of fact before imposing consecutive sentences pursuant to Ohio
Revised Code § 2929.14(C)(4).
{¶ 4} In support of his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the amount
ordered as restitution was greater than the actual loss suffered by the victim and that the
trial court failed to consider possible depreciation of the stolen jewelry. Appellant also
argues that the trial court failed to consider appellant’s ability to pay the restitution.
2.
{¶ 5} Appellate courts review an order of restitution under an abuse of discretion
standard. State v. Love, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-13-09, 2014-Ohio-437. The term “abuse
of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial
court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). R.C. 2929.18 permits a trial court to
impose financial sanctions on a defendant, including restitution and reimbursements,
subject to the defendant’s opportunity to dispute the amounts imposed. Additionally, a
trial court may comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) by considering a presentence
investigation report. See e.g. State v. Dupois, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-12-1035, 2013-Ohio-
2128, ¶ 44.
{¶ 6} As to the order for restitution, the trial court stated at sentencing that it had
considered appellant’s presentence investigation report. The record reflects that the
specific amount of restitution was based on the evidence and testimony of the victim.
The victim testified that she paid $500 to get some of her jewelry back from a pawn shop
and that, based on the purchase receipts she produced for all of the items, including items
not recovered from the pawn shop, the value totaled $7,200.
{¶ 7} Further, while appellant argues that the trial court should have considered
possible depreciation of the items stolen, he did not offer any evidence to support that
claim or raise the issue at the hearing.
3.
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, we are unable to find that the trial court’s order of
restitution was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and therefore an abuse of
discretion. Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 9} In support of his second assignment of error, appellant asserts that his
sentences should be vacated because the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact
before imposing consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
{¶ 10} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) establishes that in order to properly sentence a
defendant to consecutive prison terms for convictions on multiple offenses the sentencing
court must find that such a sentence 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.”
{¶ 11} The statute further establishes that the court must also find that the offender
falls within one of three additional delineated statutory findings. Relevant to the instant
case, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) delineates that one of the three potential findings necessary
to satisfy that portion of the statute is that the offender’s history of criminal conduct
demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crimes by the offender.
{¶ 12} We have carefully reviewed and considered the transcript of the sentencing
proceedings and the sentencing entry. The sentencing transcript reflects in pertinent part
that the trial court stated,
4.
The Court has reviewed the presentence investigation. There are
multiple offenses by this defendant, primarily in Lucas County, starting in
2004 and continuing on through three or four pages worth of offenses,
many of them similar to this: theft and assault and violating a protective
order. * * * [T]here’s a failure to appear many times.
So it appears to this Court that this defendant is not amenable to
community control and that consecutive sentencing is necessary to protect
the public from future crimes from this defendant, and that consecutive
sentencing will not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct.
The defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentencing is necessary to protect the public. So I’m going to
impose twelve months on each of the two counts in the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Corrections and order those be served consecutive to
each other.
{¶ 13} Our review of the sentencing entry indicates that the trial court stated,
Further, the Court finds that the Defendant is not amenable to
community control and that the Defendant’s history of criminal conduct
demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public
from future crime from this Defendant, and that consecutive sentencing
would not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
5.
{¶ 14} When the sentencing entry is compared with the language contained
in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), it appears that the trial court did comply with the statutory
requirements.
{¶ 15} As such, the trial court properly satisfied the requirements of R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) and 2929.14(C)(4)(c) when it imposed sentence at the hearing and in its
sentencing entry. Based on the foregoing, we find appellant’s second assignment of error
not well-taken.
{¶ 16} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Wood County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant pursuant to
App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.
6.