[Cite as State v. Priest,
2022-Ohio-4291.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vsCase No. 2022 CA 00022
GLENN J. PRIEST
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 00321
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 30, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM C. HAYES WILLIAM T. CRAMER
Licking County Prosecutor 470 Olde Worthington Road – Suite #200
Westerville, Ohio 43082
ROBERT N. ABDALLA
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
20 S. Second Street
Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00022 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Glenn Priest appeals the judgment entered by the
Licking County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of guilty to
involuntary manslaughter (R.C. 2903.04(A)), felonious assault with a firearm specification
(R.C. 2941.145(A)), having weapons under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)), and
improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle (R.C. 2923.16(B)) and sentencing him to
an aggregate term of twenty years incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On May 11, 2018, Newark police were dispatched to an address on
Hancock Street for a report of shots fired. Upon arrival police located a deceased white
male, later identified as Jessie Moffitt Sr. Upon investigation, police learned Moffitt went
to the Hancock Street address to retrieve a cell phone. At the residence, a verbal
altercation ensued between Moffitt and a third party. During the altercation, appellant
came up from the basement and shot and killed Moffitt. Appellant fled the scene in a gold
Ford F150.
{¶3} On May 12, 2018, Newark police learned the Ohio State Highway Patrol
was investigating Appellant's involvement in a road-rage incident, during which he was
also driving the gold Ford F150 on Interstate 70 westbound near mile post 137 in Licking
County. In this incident, Appellant passed a vehicle, went onto the berm of the highway,
stopped in front of the vehicle, and fired at least one shot at the vehicle. The driver of the
vehicle went around Appellant and fled. On the morning of May 13, 2018, Newark police
found the gold Ford F150 abandoned near railroad tracks behind a residence on Hudson
Avenue in Newark. Police watched the vehicle until Appellant was arrested later that
evening.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00022 3
{¶4} At the time of his arrest, a firearm was found on Appellant's person.
Appellant was Mirandized and interviewed. He admitted killing Moffitt.
{¶5} Appellant was charged by indictment as follows: one count of murder
pursuant to R.C. 2903.02(A), an unclassified felony [Count I]; one count of involuntary
manslaughter pursuant to R.C. 2903.04(A), a felony of the first degree [Count II]; one
count of having weapons while under disability pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony
of the third degree [Count III]; one count of felonious assault pursuant to R.C.
2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree [Count IV]; one count of having weapons
while under disability pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree [Count
V]; and one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle pursuant to R.C.
2923.26(B), a felony of the fourth degree [Count VI]. Counts I, II, and IV are accompanied
by repeat-violent-offender specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.149(A) and firearm
specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). Appellant entered guilty pleas to involuntary
manslaughter, felonious assault with a firearm specification, having a weapon under
disability, and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle. The State dismissed the
remaining charges.
{¶6} Appellant was sentenced by the Licking County Common Pleas Court to six
years incarceration for involuntary manslaughter, eight years incarceration for felonious
assault, three years incarceration for the firearm specification, three years incarceration
for having a weapon under disability, and one year incarceration for improper handling of
a firearm in a motor vehicle, with all sentences except the one year for improper handling
of a firearm to be served consecutively to each other, but concurrently to the one year
sentence for improper handling of a firearm, for an aggregate prison term of twenty years.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00022 4
{¶7} Appellant filed an appeal to this Court, arguing the trial court erred in failing
to merge the convictions of felonious assault and improper handling of a firearm, and the
trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite statutory
findings at the sentencing hearing. We found the trial court did not err in failing to merge
the convictions, but found the trial court failed to make the required findings before
imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Priest, 5th Dist. Licking No. 19-CA-14, 2021-
Ohio-3418. We vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
{¶8} On remand, the trial court held a new sentencing hearing, and imposed the
same sentence. It is from the April 13, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant
prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS BY
FAILING TO MAKE ALL OF THE STATUTORY FINDINGS UNDER R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) BEFORE IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
II. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS BY
IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHEN THE RECORD DOES
NOT SUPPORT THE REQUISITE STATUTORY FINDINGS.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00022 5
I.
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court failed to make
the findings required at the sentencing hearing to impose consecutive sentences pursuant
to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
{¶10} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:
(4) 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:
(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.
(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.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00022 6
(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} The trial court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing
hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to
state reasons to support its findings, nor must it recite certain talismanic words or phrases
in order to be considered to have complied. State v. Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-
525, 2019-Ohio-5199, ¶ 34, citing State v. Bonnell,
140 Ohio St.3d 209,
2014-Ohio-3177,
syllabus.
{¶12} The trial court made the following findings at the sentencing hearing:
I find consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public,
punish you, are not disproportionate to the crimes you committed or
sentences imposed on others for similar conduct. I further find your criminal
history demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the
public from future crime, and I would specifically point out your present term
on post-release control at the time of the offense, your prior conviction for
carrying a concealed weapon, aggravated assault, robbery.
{¶13} 4/13/22 Hrg., p. 7.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00022 7
{¶14} While we recognize the trial court is not required to recite “talismanic words
or phrases” in order to be considered to have complied, we find the trial court’s finding
concerning disproportionality do not meet the requirements of the statute.
{¶15} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires the trial court to find “consecutive sentences
are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger
the offender poses to the public.” Thus, two findings concerning disproportionality are
required: first, consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
defendant’s conduct, and second, consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
danger the defendant poses to the public. The trial court first found consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the crimes Appellant committed. While not using
the exact language of the statute, we find the language used by the trial court is sufficient
to comply with the statutory requirement the trial court find consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of Appellant’s conduct.
{¶16} However, the trial court made no finding consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the danger Appellant poses to the public. Instead, the trial court found
consecutive sentences “are not disproportionate to the crimes you committed or
sentences imposed on others for similar conduct.” (Emphasis added). Disproportionality
of a defendant’s sentence in comparison with other similarly-situated defendants is an
entirely separate legal concept from disproportionality to the danger Appellant poses to
the public. We therefore find the trial court’s findings at the sentencing hearing did not
comply with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and the trial court erred in imposing consecutive
sentences.
{¶17} The first assignment of error is sustained.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00022 8
II.
{¶18} The second assignment of error is rendered premature by our disposition
of Appellant’s first assignment of error.
{¶19} The judgment of the Licking County Common Pleas Court is reversed, and
this cause is remanded to that court for resentencing in accordance with law and this
opinion.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
HON. JOHN W. WISE
