[Cite as State v. Roll, 2021-Ohio-1989.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2020-P-0052
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
-v- Court of Common Pleas
TRAVIS H. ROLL,
Trial Court No. 2018 CR 01060 D
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: June 14, 2021
Judgment: Reversed and remanded
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Paul M. Grant, 209 South Main Street, Eighth Floor, Suite 3, Akron, OH 44308 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Travis H. Roll, appeals the judgment of the Portage County Court
of Common Pleas, sentencing him to four concurrent terms of 12 months imprisonment,
to be served consecutively, with a term he is presently serving for a Summit County
conviction. We reverse and remand the matter.
{¶2} Appellant was indicted on two counts of aggravated possession of drugs, in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a) and (b); improperly handling firearms in a motor
vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B); six counts of receiving stolen property, in violation
of R.C. 2913.51; obstructing justice, in violation of R.C. 2921.32; and two counts of driving
under suspension, in violation of R.C. 4510.11(A) and (B)(1). He pleaded not guilty to
all counts. He later changed his plea and entered a plea of guilty to one count of
aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree; two counts of receiving stolen
property, felonies of the fourth degree; and one count of obstructing official business, a
felony of the fifth degree. A presentence investigation report (“PSI”) was ordered, but,
according to the Portage County Probation Department, it was not completed (and the
trial court acknowledged this fact in its judgment entry on sentence). In lieu of a PSI, the
probation department filed a document relating to appellant’s “eligibility for Intervention in
Lieu of Conviction.” After a hearing, appellant was ultimately sentenced to concurrent
terms of 12 months imprisonment for each offense. The court ordered the sentence to
run consecutively with a term appellant was serving in Summit County. He now appeals
and assigns the following as error:
{¶3} “The trial court erred to the prejudice of Mr. Roll by imposing consecutive
sentences in violation of Mr. Roll’s rights under Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution.”
{¶4} “On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court to review the record, including the findings
underlying the sentence, and to modify or vacate the sentence if it clearly and convincingly
finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4).” State v. Maple, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2018-A-0091, 2019-Ohio-2091,
¶9, citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶28; see also State v.
Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶22. “Under this standard, an appellate
2
Case No. 2020-P-0052
court upholds the imposed felony sentence unless: (1) required mandatory findings are
clearly and convincingly not supported by the record; or (2) the sentence is clearly and
convincingly contrary to law.” State v. Aldrich, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2017-A-0033,
2017-Ohio-8944, ¶32 (citations omitted).
{¶5} In this matter, the trial court imposed 12-months imprisonment for
each of the four counts to which he pleaded guilty and ordered those counts to be
served concurrently. In general, it is presumed that prison terms will be served
concurrently. R.C. 2929.41(A); Bonnell, supra, at ¶23 (“judicial fact-finding is once
again required to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of concurrent
sentences”). R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), however, permits a trial court to impose
consecutive sentences if it makes specific findings.
{¶6} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states:
{¶7} 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:
{¶8} (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.
{¶9} (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.
3
Case No. 2020-P-0052
{¶10} (c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
future crime by the offender.
{¶11} In this matter, the trial court made none of the foregoing findings. As
such, the trial court erred in running the underlying sentences consecutive to the
Summit County case. The state concedes this error and, as a result, the matter
must be reversed and remanded.
{¶12} The trial court intended to impose consecutive sentences but failed
to make the necessary findings on record. The sentence, therefore, is clearly and
convincingly contrary to law.
{¶13} Appellant’s assignment of error has merit.
{¶14} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Portage County Court
of Common Pleas is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
4
Case No. 2020-P-0052