[Cite as State v. Skeene,
2017-Ohio-1494.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NOS. CA2016-07-049
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CA2016-07-050
: OPINION
- vs - 4/24/2017
:
TRENT A. SKEENE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 2016CR0146
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South
Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee
W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F. Benintendi, 302 East Main
Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Trent Skeene, appeals the sentence he received in the
Clermont County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to robbery, assault on a police
officer, burglary and grand theft. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court's
sentencing decision.
{¶ 2} Appellant pled guilty to several charges as part of a plea bargain involving two
different cases. In the first case, appellant pled guilty to robbery and assault on a police
Clermont CA2016-07-049
CA2016-07-050
officer. These charges involved appellant's attempt to steal a television from Walmart and a
physical altercation with a loss prevention officer who tried to stop him. Appellant then fled
the Walmart parking lot in a waiting vehicle. Shortly after, the vehicle was stopped by a
sheriff's deputy who tried to arrest appellant, but appellant resisted arrest and fought with the
deputy into oncoming traffic, where the deputy was struck by a car.
{¶ 3} In the second case, appellant pled guilty to two counts of burglary, one with an
attached firearm specification, and two counts of grand theft. These charges were the result
of appellant breaking into homes in Clermont County and stealing multiple items, including
firearms. This case originally began in juvenile court, but was transferred to the court of
common pleas after the juvenile court found the statutory factors weighed in favor of
transferring the charges to the adult system.
{¶ 4} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on the two cases. In the first case, the
trial court sentenced appellant to seven years on the robbery and 18 months for the assault
on a police officer, to run consecutively. In the second case, the trial court sentenced
appellant to 36 months for one of the burglaries, to run concurrent with 18 months for one of
the grand theft convictions. The court further imposed a consecutive four-year term for the
second burglary, with a consecutive one-year sentence for the firearm specification, and a
24-month consecutive sentence for the second theft. The trial court ordered the first case to
run consecutive to the second, for an aggregate sentence of 18 and one-half years in prison.
{¶ 5} On appeal, appellant raises two assignments of error for our review. As both
assignments of error challenge the trial court's sentencing decision, they will be discussed
together.
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT'S 18 1/2 YEAR PRISON SENTENCE IS NOT
COMMENSURATE WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF APPELLANT'S CONDUCT AND IS NOT
THE MINIMUM SANCTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF
-2-
Clermont CA2016-07-049
CA2016-07-050
SENTENCING.
{¶ 7} THE CONSECUTIVE STRUCTURE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S 18 1/2 YEAR
SENTENCE IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO APPELLANT'S CONDUCT.
{¶ 8} Appellate review of felony sentences is governed by the standard of review set
forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which requires this court to determine whether the imposition of a
sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,
2016-Ohio-1002; State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224,
2016-Ohio-4822. A
sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the record supports the trial
court's findings under the relevant statutes, the court considers the purposes and principles
of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, the court considers the seriousness and recidivism
factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, and the sentence is within the statutory range. State v.
McCree, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2016-06-049,
2017-Ohio-791, ¶ 20.
{¶ 9} Appellant argues that the trial court's decision to sentence him to seven years
for the robbery charge was not commensurate with the seriousness of his conduct. He
contends that the facts were not particularly egregious and that a co-defendant in the robbery
was placed on community control. Appellant further argues that at the time of the burglary
and theft offenses, he was only 17 years old, and no one was injured, threatened or harmed
by his behavior. Finally, he argues that the court's decision to run the sentences
consecutively was also disproportionate to his conduct.
{¶ 10} A sentence imposed for a felony must be reasonably calculated to achieve the
purposes of protecting the public from future crime by the offender and to punish the offender
and must be "commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's
conduct and its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar
crimes committed by similar offenders." R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶ 11} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated it had considered the
-3-
Clermont CA2016-07-049
CA2016-07-050
purposes and principles of sentencing found in R.C. 2929.11(A). The court further indicated
that it had reviewed appellant's presentence report, which indicated "a very significant
juvenile record." The court further found that in the majority of appellant's juvenile offenses,
there were probation violations filed, which the court found showed appellant's inability to
follow the orders of previous courts. The court also noted that the presentence report
indicated appellant had warrants pending in Brown County.
{¶ 12} The trial court found that although appellant was 18 years old and his adult
record was limited, appellant's juvenile record "says a lot about where you were, where
you've been, and where you are." The court found appellant had already shown "a
significant pattern of criminal behavior with an extensive prior juvenile record." The court
indicated that appellant was on community control of some type when the offense was
committed and as a juvenile appellant was sanctioned with community control, local
detention, restitution, financial sanctions and electronic monitoring. As an adult, appellant
was sanctioned with local incarceration, restitution and financial sanctions. The court stated
that despite these opportunities to change his conduct, appellant continued to engage in
illegal behavior.
{¶ 13} The court stated that it considered the injury to the deputy, which it indicated
could have been much worse, and the impact on the female driver who accidentally hit the
deputy. The court also indicated it had considered appellant's comments regarding his lack
of guidance growing up, but indicated such did not excuse appellant's actions.
{¶ 14} We find no error in the trial court's decision to sentence appellant to seven
years on the robbery conviction. The court considered the statutory factors and the sentence
is within the statutory range. While the court considered appellant's age, it focused on
appellant's lengthy record, the previous available opportunities for appellant to change his
course of behavior, and appellant's inability to follow the requirements of previous sanctions
-4-
Clermont CA2016-07-049
CA2016-07-050
imposed on him.
{¶ 15} In addition, while R.C. 2929.11(B) specifies that felony sentences should be
consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders,
consistency in sentencing does not mean uniformity. State v. Watson, 12th Dist. Warren No.
CA2014-08-110, 2015-Ohio-2321. "[A] defendant claiming inconsistent sentencing must
demonstrate that the trial court failed to properly consider the statutory sentencing factors
and guidelines forum in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12." State v. Micomonaco, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2011-07-139,
2012-Ohio-5239, ¶ 49. As mentioned above, the court considered
these factors.
{¶ 16} Moreover, appellant and his co-defendant were not similarly situated offenders
as appellant was the primary offender in the robbery. Appellant went into Walmart,
attempted to walk out with a television and when confronted by a loss-prevention officer,
elbowed her in the face. He then ran out the door and into a waiting vehicle, which was
driven by the co-defendant.
{¶ 17} Finally, appellant argues the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.
Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court must engage in a three-step analysis and make
certain findings before imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Smith, 12th Dist. Clermont
No. CA2014-07-054, 2015-Ohio-1093, ¶ 7. Specifically, the trial court must find that (1) the
consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the
offender, (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and (3) one of the
following applies:
(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.
-5-
Clermont CA2016-07-049
CA2016-07-050
(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.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Smith at ¶ 7.
{¶ 18} The court made the required findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to
impose consecutive sentences. While appellant argues that consecutive sentences are
disproportionate to his conduct, the record supports the trial court's decision. As mentioned
above, the court was considering two separate cases at sentencing, one involving a robbery
and assault on a police officer and a second involving two sets of burglaries and thefts from
homes. Appellant's juvenile record is lengthy and shows an escalation of more violent crimes
along with a repeated inability to follow court orders and to take advantage of opportunities to
change his behavior.
{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
-6-
