[Cite as State v. Runion,
2023-Ohio-254.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
WYANDOT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 16-22-07
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KAISHA NIKOLE RUNION, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 21-CR-0079
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: January 30, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Howard A. Elliott for Appellant
Eric J. Figlewicz for Appellee
Case No. 16-22-07
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Kaisha N. Runion (“Runion”) appeals the
judgment of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial
court erred in the process of sentencing. For the reasons set forth below, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On July 21, 2021, Runion was indicted on two counts of aggravated
trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), both felonies of the third
degree; one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A), a felony of the second degree; and one count of aggravated possession
of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the third degree. Doc. 1.
{¶3} On May 18, 2022, Runion pled guilty to two counts of aggravated
trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), both felonies of the fourth
degree, and one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A), a felony of the third degree. Doc. 18. The State then moved to dismiss
the third count in the indictment. Doc. 18. On May 20, 2022, the trial court issued
a judgment entry that accepted Runion’s pleas and found her guilty. Doc. 19.
{¶4} On August 17, 2022, Runion appeared before the trial court for
sentencing. Doc. 21. The trial court imposed prison terms for each of the three
charges against Runion. Doc. 21. The trial court then ordered Runion to serve these
three prison terms consecutively for an aggregate basic prison term of forty-eight
-2-
Case No. 16-22-07
months. Doc. 21. The trial court then issued its judgment entry of sentencing on
August 19, 2022. Doc. 21.
Assignment of Error
{¶5} Runion filed her notice of appeal on September 15, 2022. Doc. 28. On
appeal, she raises the following assignment of error:
Although a Trial Court may make the required statutory findings
as set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 29.14(C)(4) [sic]
imposing consecutive sentences, those findings must be supported
by matters in the record and the failure to do so renders the
sentence invalid and the same must be reversed and set aside and
the matter remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings.
Runion asserts that the findings that the trial court made in the process of imposing
consecutive sentences are not supported by the record.
Legal Standard
{¶6} “In order to impose consecutive sentences, a trial court is required under
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to make certain findings for the record and to incorporate these
findings into the judgment entry.” State v. Taflinger, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-17-20,
2018-Ohio-456, ¶ 14. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) reads as follows:
(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:
-3-
Case No. 16-22-07
(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.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). “[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, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.”
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209,
2014-Ohio-3177,
16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus.
See State v. Collins, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-22-29,
2022-Ohio-3872, ¶ 21.
{¶7} “[T]he proper scope of felony sentence review by Ohio appellate courts
is set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” State v. Redmond, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-
1066, 2019-Ohio-309, ¶ 15. This section reads, in its relevant part, as follows:
(2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of
this section shall review the record, including the findings
underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing
court.
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
-4-
Case No. 16-22-07
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;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Thus,
[u]nder R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse a
sentence ‘only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence
that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under
relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.’
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,
2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.
State v. Reynolds, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-22-07,
2022-Ohio-4690, ¶ 7.
Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof
which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but
not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a
reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
sought to be established.
State v. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937,
102 N.E.3d 86 (3d Dist.), ¶ 12, quoting Cross v.
Ledford,
161 Ohio St. 469,
120 N.E.2d 118, paragraph three of the syllabus (1954).
‘[A]s long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court
engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record
contains evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences
should be upheld.’ Bonnell[, supra,] at ¶ 29. In other words, ‘the
consecutive nature of the trial court’s sentencing should stand
unless the record overwhelmingly supports a contrary result.’
(Citation omitted.) [State v.] Withrow, [2016-Ohio-2884,
64
N.E.3d 553,] ¶ 39 [(2d Dist.)].
-5-
Case No. 16-22-07
State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29475, 2022-Ohio-4629, ¶ 48.
Legal Analysis
{¶8} On appeal, Runion does not argue that the trial court failed to make the
findings that are required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Rather, she argues that the
record does not support these findings. At sentencing, the trial court found that
consecutive sentences were appropriate because Runion committed these offenses
“as part of one or more courses of conduct and the harm caused by the two or more
of the multiple offenses committed was so great or unusual that no single prison
term … adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.” Tr. 13.
See R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b).
{¶9} In this case, the indictment alleged that these offenses were committed
on November 17, November 19, and November 20, 2020. Doc. 1. Further, the trial
court considered the contents of a presentence investigation. Tr. 11. The trial court
then stated the following before making the consecutive sentences findings:
Defendant has a minimal criminal history and yet she was
involved in a large by Wyandot County standards enterprise to
sell illegal drugs. When questioned, Defendant minimized her
activity, deflects blame, claims lack of knowledge, all
understandable, but her real attitude was captured in controlled
buys where she’s heard bragging about the variety of drugs she
has and how she could be the customer’s one stop shop. The drugs
Defendant was selling hurt people. Making these drugs easily
available feeds their additions, ruins their health, and dissuades
them from seeking treatment. Being a part of a drug house also
makes life miserable for your neighbors and the community.
-6-
Case No. 16-22-07
Tr. 12. Having examined the materials in the record, we “can discern that the trial
court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains
evidence to support the [required] findings ….” Bonnell[, supra,] at ¶ 29.
{¶10} In summary, the trial court made the findings required under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(b). We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not
support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Jessen,
3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-18-16, 2019-Ohio-907, ¶ 20. Thus, Runion has not carried
her burden on appeal. Accordingly, her sole assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶11} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.
/hls
-7-
