[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-272.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 105360
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
STEPHEN L. JOHNSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-16-607610-A
BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, P.J., Celebrezze, J., and Jones, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 25, 2018
-i-
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Myron P. Watson
614 Superior Ave., Suite 1144
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Owen M. Patton
Blaise D. Thomas
Assistant County Prosecutors
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶1} Stephen Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals his 22-year prison sentence and
assigns the following error for our review:
I. The trial court erred when it imposed a maximum and consecutive
sentence when it failed to consider mitigation factors, and the record does
not support its findings to impose this type of sentence.
{¶2} Upon review of the record, we find no merit to the appeal and affirm
Johnson’s sentence.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶3} On November 28, 2016, Johnson pled guilty to one count of voluntary
manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.03(A), a first-degree felony, with a three-year
firearm specification and one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C.
2903.11(A)(2), a second-degree felony. On December 19, 2016, the court sentenced
Johnson to 11 years in prison for manslaughter, three years in prison for the gun
specification, and 8 years in prison for assault. The court ran these sentences
consecutively for an aggregate prison term of 22 years. Johnson now appeals from this
sentence.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Maximum Sentences
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Johnson argues that the court “had
insufficient support in the record * * * to impose a maximum and consecutive sentence”
of 22 years.
{¶5} R.C. 2953.08(A)(1) permits Johnson to appeal his maximum consecutive
sentence. R.C. 2953.08(G) provides that a court hearing an appeal under R.C.
2953.08(A) “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence” or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing if it clearly and
convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) The record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under
division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of
section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,
whichever, if any, is relevant; [or]
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶6} A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls outside the statutory
range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the trial court failed to consider 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. Carabello, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100354,
2014-Ohio-2641, ¶ 6-7.
{¶7} Courts have “full discretion” to impose a sentence within the applicable
statutory range. State v. Collier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95572, 2011-Ohio-2791, ¶ 15,
citing State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, paragraph
seven of the syllabus. Therefore, a sentence imposed within the statutory range is
“presumptively valid” if the court considered the applicable sentencing factors. Id.
{¶8} A trial court is no longer required to make findings or provide reasons for
imposing the maximum sentence. State v. Bement, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99914,
2013-Ohio-5437, ¶ 14. Although the trial court must consider the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors listed
in R.C. 2929.12, the sentencing court is not required to “state on the record that it
considered the statutory criteria or discussed them.” State v. Pickens, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 89658, 2008-Ohio-1407, ¶ 5, quoting State v. Polick, 101 Ohio App.3d 428, 655
N.E.2d 820 (4th Dist.1995). A trial court’s statement that it considered the required
statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing
statutes. State v. Wright, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95096, 2011-Ohio-733, ¶ 4.
B. Consecutive Sentences
{¶9} “[T]o impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial 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. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d
209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the court
must find consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future crime or
to punish the offender”; “not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct
and to the danger the offender poses to the public”; and at least one of the following three
factors:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the
offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction * * *, 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.
{¶10} In the case at hand, Johnson alleged that, on May 3, 2016, he was
on Noble Road in Cleveland Heights with his brother when four men started shooting at
them. Johnson fired shots in return, most of which hit a car parked nearby. Two men
were in the car at the time, and one of them was fatally shot three times in the back.
{¶11} Johnson offered the following mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing:
Johnson apologized directly to the victim’s family and his family and showed remorse for
his actions. Johnson also stated that he fired his gun in response to being shot at, and he
“didn’t pull out no gun just to shoot people.” Furthermore, Johnson’s friend, girlfriend,
and brother expressed that Johnson was a “good guy” who made a bad decision. In
response to Johnson’s mitigating factors, the court stated, “that’s not acceptable to me,
and I don’t care what your circumstances are.” The court concluded that Johnson, his
family, his friends, and his attorney “have not said anything to indicate that there [was]
anything mitigating.”
{¶12} Additionally, the court made the following findings on the record
immediately after sentencing Johnson to 22 years in prison:
That consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime. That consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct. That the offender’s history of
criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime by the offender.
The court does find that this weapon was utilized, although you say that it
was not meant to cause the damage that it did, that when the gun jammed,
that you corrected the gun and that you continued to empty the gun into the
car of an innocent individual who had no involvement in the situation.
{¶13} The sentencing journal entry in the case at hand states, in relevant
part:
The court considered all required factors of the law. The court finds that
prison is consistent with the purpose of R.C. 2929.11. * * * The consecutive
sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime, that
consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
offender’s conduct, the offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates
that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
{¶14} Upon review, we find that Johnson’s sentence falls within the statutory
range for the offenses of which he was convicted. Furthermore, the court considered the
statutory purposes, principles, and factors of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12. Additionally, the court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when it ran
Johnson’s sentences consecutively by considering the proportionality of Johnson’s
sentence, the seriousness of the offenses, and the need to protect the public from future
crime.
C. Conclusion
{¶15} The court did not err by sentencing Johnson to 22 years in prison in this
manslaughter and assault case. Although the court sentenced Johnson to the maximum
prison term possible for his convictions, and ran those sentences consecutively, his
sentence is not contrary to law, it is supported by evidence in the record, and the court
considered the proper felony sentencing statutes when imposing the prison term.
Johnson’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} Sentence 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 be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas 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.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR