[Cite as State v. Riddle,
2023-Ohio-1569.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 111933
v. :
JAMES A. RIDDLE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 11, 2023
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-21-665945-A, CR-21-666073-A, CR-21-666490-A,
and CR-22-672459-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Chauncey Keller, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Brian A. Smith Law Firm, LLC, and Brian A. Smith, for
appellant.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:
Defendant-appellant James Riddle appeals the imposition of
consecutive prison sentences in four felony cases. Because the trial court made the
necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences and there is competent, credible
evidence within the record to support the imposition of consecutive sentences, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Procedural History and Relevant Facts
Indictments
Between December 14, 2021, and July 18, 2022, Riddle was indicted
in four separate felony cases. On December 14, 2021, Riddle was indicted in
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-665945-A for one count of burglary in violation of
R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), a felony of the second degree, and one count of criminal
damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the second degree.
The indictment arose from conduct occurring on December 6, 2021, in the city of
Cleveland, Ohio.
On December 17, 2021, Riddle was indicted in Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-21-666073-A for one count of theft of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree. The indictment arose from conduct
occurring on December 9, 2021, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio.
On January 14, 2022, Riddle was indicted in Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-21-666490-A for one count of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), a
felony of the third degree; two counts of attempted robbery in violation of
R.C. 2923.02 and 2911.02(A)(3), felonies of the fourth degree; one count of
impersonating a peace officer in violation of R.C. 2921.51(D), a misdemeanor of the
first degree; and one count of soliciting in violation or R.C. 2907.24(A), a
misdemeanor of the third degree. The indictment arose from conduct occurring on
December 23, 2021, in the city of Parma Heights, Ohio.
On July 18, 2022, Riddle was indicted in Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-22-672459-A for one count of theft of a firearm in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), with a one-year firearm specification pursuant to
R.C. 2941.141(A), a felony of the third degree; one count of theft of a motor vehicle
in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree; and two counts of
receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) with one-year firearm
specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.141(A), felonies of the fourth-degree. The
indictment arose from conduct occurring on December 5, 2021, in Cleveland, Ohio.
Guilty Pleas and Sentences
On August 17, 2022, following receipt of discovery and after several
pretrial conferences were held, Riddle entered into a plea bargain with the state and
was sentenced by the trial court. The trial court imposed an aggregate 72 month (6
year) prison sentence for the four cases.1 In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-665945,
Riddle entered guilty pleas to an amended indictment: one count of burglary in
violation of R.C. 2911.12(B), a felony of the fourth degree; and one count of criminal
damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the second degree.
The trial court imposed a prison term of 18-months on the burglary charge and a
90-day sentence on the criminal damaging charge, ordering the sentences to be
1Our review of the transcript reveals that trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 72
months, which is a term of 6 years.
served concurrently. The trial court also ordered restitution in the amount of
$479.15.
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-666073, Riddle entered a guilty plea to
an amended indictment: one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle in violation of
R.C. 2913.03(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The trial court imposed a 30-
day jail sentence and granted Riddle credit for 30 days served.
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-666490, Riddle entered guilty pleas to
an amended indictment: two counts of attempted robbery in violation of
R.C. 2902.03 and 2911.02(A)(3), felonies of the fourth degree, and to one count of
soliciting in violation or R.C. 2907.24(A), a misdemeanor of the third degree. The
trial court imposed a prison sentence of 18 months on each count of attempted
robbery and a 30-day jail sentence on the charge of soliciting, granting Riddle 30
days time served. The trial court ordered the two 18-month sentences to be served
consecutively to each other and consecutively to the sentences imposed in Cuyahoga
C.P. Nos. CR-21-665945 and CR-22-672459.
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-672459, Riddle entered guilty pleas to
an amended indictment: one count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a
felony of the fourth degree, and one count of attempted theft of a motor vehicle in
violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth degree. The trial
court imposed an 18-month prison sentence on the count of theft and a 12-month
prison sentence on the count of attempted theft.
Sentencing Hearing
After accepting Riddle’s guilty pleas, the trial court proceeded to a
sentencing hearing. The state outlined the facts of the several cases, noting that they
occurred on different dates, at different times, with different victims. The state
related that in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-665945, during the early morning hours at
a bar, Riddle broke into the bar owner’s car using propane tanks, took a screwdriver
from the car, and then tried to use the screwdriver to break into the bar. Riddle told
police that he just wanted to get a drink. The prosecutor related that the bar owner
did not want to see Riddle go to prison, but instead wanted to see Riddle get help.
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-666073, the state informed the trial
court that Riddle was attempting to steal a car from the MetroHealth Hospital valet
area. When apprehended, Riddle told police that he just wanted to go home.
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-666490, the state explained there were
four incidences of criminal conduct. In the first incident, Riddle was bothering a
woman at a laundromat and he turned a pleasant conversation into a demand for
oral sex. The woman ran from the laundromat and called the police. In the second
incident, Riddle approached a woman who was in her car in a parking lot. Riddle
told the woman that he had a firearm and that this was a robbery. The woman, who
had a concealed carry permit, pulled her firearm on Riddle, who fled across the
street into a parking lot. This victim appeared at the sentencing hearing and
informed the court that she suffers post-traumatic stress disorder, has changed how
she leads her life, and can no longer leave work alone. She requested that the trial
court impose a prison sentence.
After fleeing from his second victim to a parking lot across the street,
in the third incident, Riddle approached a person in a vehicle, stated he was a police
officer, and demanded that person’s car. That person did not comply and drove
away. Finally, Riddle approached a fourth victim as she left work and stated he was
robbing her. She fled back into the bank she worked at.
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-672459, the victim’s son left her car
running at a restaurant when he went inside to pick up food. From inside the
restaurant, the son saw the car drive away. The car was recovered about 45 minutes
later at a gas station. The victim stated there was damage to the car that she did not
have repaired. The state related that this victim wanted to see the trial court impose
a prison sentence.
Riddle’s counsel addressed the trial court, noted that Riddle had a
cognitive disorder as well as a low IQ. Counsel stated that Riddle was remorseful,
that his actions occurred after he had been hospitalized due to erratic behavior and
that he was placed on medication that “exacerbated” his erratic behavior, and that
he had overcome substance abuse issues in the past. Counsel explained that Riddle
lost his job and was drinking daily at the bar he attempted to break into and
informed the court that Riddle would be accepted at a treatment center if placed on
community-control sanctions. Riddle addressed the trial court and apologized “to
all of the victims” explaining that he was not in his right mind. He described
drinking from 5:30 a.m. to midday and would go home and pass out.
Before imposing sentence, the trial court noted that Riddle had a 26-
cycle arrest record that included arrests for domestic violence, attempted aggravated
burglary, grand theft, receiving stolen property of a motor vehicle, drug abuse, theft,
and drug possession. The trial court further noted that Riddle had drug and alcohol
treatment several times in the past. The trial court stated to Riddle:
Like I said, you’re a grown man, you make your own choices. You went
on a binge terrorizing people in this community and I’m not going to
tolerate it, Mr. Riddle. This is terrible what you’ve done to people. You
have entirely displaced their sense of any kind of safety in a world that
already isn’t very safe.
Riddle stated that he understood the trial court’s statement but said
“I wasn’t myself.” The trial court replied to Riddle:
Well, it doesn’t matter who you were at the time. You are a menace.
These are four cases within three weeks, very similar patterns of
behavior. And interestingly, several women victims, which seems to be
something that you lean towards. I see in the psych report you also –
your ex-wife had to file a restraining order against you recently. And
you’ve made sexual comments to somebody in a laundromat, that’s
totally inappropriate to do. So no, I don’t think you’re a good candidate
for community control.
In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court stated that in Case
No. 666490, the 18 -month prison sentences were to be served “consecutive to each
other, also to be served consecutive to the sentence in 672459 and 665945.” The
trial court then made the following findings in imposing consecutive sentences:
The Court has determined that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender, and
are not disproportionate to the seriousness of your conduct and the
danger you pose to the public.
Additionally, the Court finds the following factors: That the offender
committed one or more of the multiple offenses — I’m sorry — that 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
offenses committed was so great or unusual, that no single prison term
adequately reflects the seriousness of the conduct, and that the
offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the
offender.2
Law and Analysis
Riddle’s sole assignment of error reads:
The record does not support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive
sentences on Appellant in case number CR-21-666490.
Riddle argues that the record does not support the imposition of
consecutive sentences because there was no information to support the court’s
finding made pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that consecutive sentences were
necessary to “protect the public from future crime” or to “punish the offender.”
Riddle argues that the record instead contains a history of mental health and
substance abuse issues and that the facts presented to the trial court regarding his
crimes do not support the consecutive-sentencing findings made by the trial court.
The state argues that consecutive sentences were justified and that the findings
made by the trial court were supported by Riddle’s criminal history; the number of
2 In the sentencing entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-666490, the trial court journalized
its consecutive-sentence findings.
felonies to which he pleaded guilty; the number of victims involved, most of whom
were complete strangers; and the harm Riddle caused some victims.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides that when imposing consecutive
sentences, a sentencing court must find that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender, that the sentences
are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct, and one 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.
c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
Our review of consecutive sentences is authorized by
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides in relevant part:
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence
and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The
appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing
court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action
authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of
the following
(a) That 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.
In State v. Gwynne, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4607, ¶ 25, the Ohio
Supreme clarified that appellate review of consecutive sentences is a two-step
process. First, the reviewing court is to determine whether the findings under
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were made.
Id. Riddle does not contest that the trial court made
these statutory findings. Next, the appellate court is to “determine whether the
record clearly and convincingly supports those findings.” Id. at ¶ 26. In reviewing
the record, the appellate court is to examine “both the quantity and quality of the
evidence … that either supports or contradicts the consecutive-sentence findings.”
Id. at ¶ 29. Finally, having reviewed the record, if the appellate court finds that
even one of the consecutive-sentence findings is found not to be
supported by the record under the clear-and-convincing standard
provided by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), then the trial court’s order of
consecutive sentences must be either modified or vacated by the
appellate court. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
Id.
Riddle argues that the record in this case does not clearly and
convincingly support the imposition of consecutive sentences because of his mental
health status, his history of substance abuse issues and prior successful treatment,
and the lack of physical harm to his victims. However, in this case, the trial court
found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish Riddle and that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate
to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses to the public. It further
found that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or
more courses of conduct, that the harm caused by two or more of the offenses
committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term adequately reflects the
seriousness of the conduct, and that the offender’s history of criminal conduct
demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
future crime.
The record supports the trial court’s findings that consecutive
sentences were appropriate to both punish Riddle and protect the public in light of
Riddle’s lengthy criminal history and his commission of multiple serious crimes
against multiple victims over a three-week period. Further, in light of the particular
harm caused to some of Riddle’s victims, the record supports the trial court’s finding
that no single prison term adequately reflects the seriousness of Riddle’s conduct.
Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we do not clearly and convincingly
find that the record does not support the consecutive-sentence findings made by the
trial court.
Judgment 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 issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court 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.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
