[Cite as State v. Lake,
2023-Ohio-3191.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-22-1273
L-22-1274
Appellee L-22-1275
L-22-1276
Trial Court No. CR0202101142
CR0202101278
CR0202101797
v. CR0202101800
Trey Lake DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 8, 2023
…
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.
…
SULEK, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Trey Lake, appeals from four
judgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an aggregate
minimum prison term of 64 years, with an indefinite term of life in prison, following his
convictions for two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, related firearm
specifications, and participating in a criminal gang. For the following reasons, the trial
court’s judgment is affirmed.
A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Between October 26, 2020, and June 3, 2021, the Lucas County Grand Jury
entered eight different indictments against Lake, charging him with a total of two counts
of aggravated murder, two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, three
counts of felonious assault, three counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of having a
weapon under disability, two counts of carrying concealed weapons, one count of
tampering with evidence, and one count of participating in a criminal gang, along with
various firearm and gang-participation specifications.
{¶ 3} The state subsequently filed a motion for joinder of all cases pending against
Lake for trial, asserting that the facts underlying each case arose from an “eight month
crime spree” involving Lake’s possession of guns, gun violence, and gang participation.
The state maintained that Lake would not suffer prejudice as a result of the cases being
joined for trial because all evidence related to the common scheme of gang participation
and intimidation would be admissible in each of the underlying cases.
{¶ 4} In response to the state’s motion, Lake filed a motion for relief from
prejudicial joinder pursuant to Crim.R. 14, arguing that he would suffer prejudice if the
2.
cases were joined for trial because the volume of evidence presented to the jury would
lead it to convict him for being a “bad person” rather than considering each offense on its
own merits. Further, he argued that joining the cases for trial would result in the
improper admission of Evid.R. 404(B) “other acts” evidence.
{¶ 5} On February 25, 2022, the trial court denied Lake’s motion for relief from
prejudicial joinder and granted the state’s motion for joinder.
{¶ 6} Thereafter, pursuant to a plea agreement, Lake entered an Alford plea to:
1. In case No. CR20211142, one count of attempted murder in
violation of R.C. 2923.02, 2903.02(A), and 2929.02, a felony of the first
degree, with an attendant firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145;
2. In case No. CR20211278, one count of attempted murder in
violation of R.C. 2923.02, 2903.02(A), and 2929.02, a felony of the first
degree, with an attendant firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145;
3. In case No. CR20211797, one count of murder in violation of
R.C. 2903.02(A) and 2929.02, an unclassified felony, with an attendant
firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145 and a gang-participation
specification under R.C. 2941.142; and
4. In case No. CR20211800, one count of murder in violation of
R.C. 2903.02(B) and 2929.02, an unclassified felony, with an attendant
firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145.
3.
{¶ 7} In exchange for his plea, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges in
case Nos. CR20211142, CR20211278, CR20211797, and CR20211800, and to dismiss
all of the charges in case Nos. CR20202354, CR20202473, CR20211105, and
CR20211212.
{¶ 8} At the plea hearing, the state informed the trial court that the evidence at trial
would have shown that Lake committed the attempted murder in case No. CR20211142
on December 1, 2020, when he shot the driver of the vehicle in which he was traveling.
Lake then fled the vehicle which proceeded to crash into a concrete wall. The victim
survived the shooting but was permanently disabled.
{¶ 9} Lake committed the attempted murder in case No. CR20211278 on
January 5, 2021, when he shot the victim in the back as he attempted to flee. The victim
had arranged to purchase a firearm from Lake. When the victim arrived for the
exchange, Lake instructed the victim to enter a vehicle. Upon doing so, Lake and another
individual robbed the victim at gunpoint. The victim escaped from the vehicle and Lake
shot him as he ran across the street. Lake and the other individual then fled in the vehicle
and were seen speeding down a city street.
{¶ 10} Lake committed the murder identified in case No. CR20211797 on
August 13, 2020, when he shot and killed the brother of a rival gang member. Lake then
attended the victim’s funeral in disguise and placed videos of himself at the funeral, as
well as videos of him rapping about the murder, on social media. The evidence in that
4.
case also would have shown that Lake was a member of a gang and engaged in gang
activities, including various other crimes, in support of the gang participation offense.
{¶ 11} Lastly, the murder in case No. CR20211800 was the result of Lake’s
participation in an altercation on November 1, 2020, at an after-hours bar located in
Toledo, Ohio. Following a fight among two patrons, security at the bar ordered everyone
to leave. One patron went to his vehicle, retrieved a firearm, and reentered the bar.
When he returned inside, Lake immediately shot and killed the other patron. Lake then
robbed the victim before exiting the premises.
{¶ 12} Lake did not object to the state’s recitation of facts. The trial court then
accepted Lake’s Alford plea and set the matter for sentencing on October 5, 2022.
{¶ 13} As to the two counts of attempted murder, the trial court imposed separate
indefinite prison terms of eleven to sixteen-and-one-half years, along with the mandatory
consecutive three-year prison terms for the firearm specifications. For the two counts of
murder, the trial court imposed separate indefinite prison terms of fifteen years to life,
along with the mandatory consecutive three-year prison terms for the firearm
specifications and a concurrent indefinite prison term of eight to twelve years for the
gang-participation specification. With the exception of the gang-participation
specification, the trial court ordered all of the prison terms to be served consecutively for
a total aggregate sentence of sixty-four years to life.
5.
{¶ 14} In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court found that consecutive
sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish Lake, that
consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Lake’s conduct and
the danger he poses to the public, and that Lake committed one or more of the offenses
while he was awaiting trial and the harm caused by Lake’s conduct was so great or
unusual that no single prison term adequately reflects the seriousness of his conduct.
{¶ 15} The trial court memorialized its judgment entries reflecting the convictions
on October 5, 2022. On November 30, 2022, this court granted Lake’s motion for leave
to file delayed appeals in case Nos. CR20211142, CR20211278, CR20211797, and
CR20211800 and ordered that all four appeals be consolidated.
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 16} In this consolidated appeal, Lake asserts the following errors for our
review:
1. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s Motion
for Relief from Prejudicial Joinder, pursuant to Crim.R. 14;
2. The trial court abused its use of consecutive sentences by imposing
a 52-year (minimum) sentence which is disproportionate to the harm caused
in this matter.1
1
Lake’s calculation of the minimum aggregate prison term excludes the three-year prison
terms for the related gun specifications in each case. Those three-year terms are served
consecutive to the minimum prison term pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a), resulting in
an aggregate 64-year minimum prison term.
6.
II. Law and Analysis
1. Lake waived his challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief
from prejudicial joinder by entering his guilty plea.
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, Lake argues that the trial court erred in
denying his Crim.R. 14 motion for relief from prejudicial joinder. Specifically, he argues
that his motion, seeking severance of the eight cases pending against him for trial, was
improperly denied because a trial on all eight joined offenses would have resulted in the
admission of “other acts” evidence unrelated to any offense individually. The resulting
prejudice, he argues, would have prevented him from receiving a fair trial. We do not
address the merits of Lake’s argument, however, because he waived his challenge to the
trial court’s alleged error by entering a guilty plea.
{¶ 18} Following negotiations with the state, Lake entered an Alford plea to five
counts in four of the cases pending against him. “An Alford plea is procedurally
indistinguishable from a guilty plea in that it severely limits the errors which may be
claimed on appeal.” State v. Drzayich, 2016-Ohio-1398,
62 N.E.3d 850, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.).
“Once a guilty plea is offered and accepted and judgment is rendered on the basis of that
guilty plea, the ability to challenge the judgment on appeal is limited to issues involving
the subject matter jurisdiction of the court which accepted the plea, and the extent to
which the plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” Id. at 12. Thus, a
guilty plea results in the waiver of the right to challenge the denial of a motion for relief
from prejudicial joinder. State v. Wolfe, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-14-022, 2015-Ohio-
7.
564, ¶ 15; see also State v. Blackmon, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1036,
2020-Ohio-2857, ¶
12 (holding that an Alford plea resulted in the waiver of claim that the trial court
committed plain error when it failed to rule upon or dismiss the state’s motion for
joinder).
{¶ 19} Here, Lake entered an Alford plea to five counts arising from indictments in
four separate cases. On appeal, Lake contends that the trial court erred by denying his
pretrial motion for relief from prejudicial joinder of all eight cases for a single trial. By
entering an Alford plea, however, Lake waived his right to challenge the trial court’s
denial of his Crim.R. 14 motion. Lake’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
2. The trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences is not contrary to law.
{¶ 20} In his second assignment of error, Lake argues that the trial court’s
imposition of consecutive sentences was not supported by the record because the
aggregate prison term imposed was disproportionate to the harm caused by Lake’s
conduct. Felony sentences are reviewed pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which states:
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:
8.
(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.
{¶ 21} In State v. Gwynn, 2022-Ohio-4607, --N.E.3d--, the Ohio Supreme Court
held that the legislature’s use of the clear and convincing evidence standard showed that
it “did not intend for appellate courts to defer to a trial court’s findings but to act as a
second fact-finder in reviewing the trial court’s order of consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶
20. Therefore, we review the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) de novo.
State v. Johnson,
2023-Ohio-2008, -- N.E.3d. --, ¶ 29 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 22} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides that a trial court may impose consecutive
sentences on an offender if it finds “that the consecutive service is necessary to protect
the public from future crime or to punish the offender,” “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 that one of the following circumstances exists:
(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.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime
by the offender.
{¶ 23} When imposing consecutive sentences, “[t]he trial court must engage in the
correct analysis, state its statutory findings during the sentencing hearing, and incorporate
those findings into its sentencing entry.” State v. Gregory, 2023-Ohio-331,
208 N.E.3d
166, ¶ 110 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Beasley,
153 Ohio St.3d 497,
2018-Ohio-493,
108
N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 253; State v. Bonnell,
140 Ohio St.3d 209,
2014-Ohio-3177,
16 N.E.3d
659, ¶ 37. “[W]hen a sentencing court makes the statutory findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences, it must consider the number of sentences that it
will impose consecutively along with the defendant's aggregate sentence that will result.”
State v. Gwynne, ––– Ohio St.3d ––––,
2022-Ohio-4607, ––– N.E.3d ––––, ¶ 12.
{¶ 24} “[U]pon a de novo review of the record, an appellate court may reverse or
modify a defendant’s consecutive sentences—including the number of consecutive
sentences imposed—when it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not
10.
support the trial court’s findings.” Id.; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). “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.” Id. at ¶ 19, quoting Cross v.
Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469,
120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶ 25} Here, the trial court made all three findings required under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) when it imposed consecutive sentences. Lake does not dispute this
conclusion. That threshold requirement being satisfied, it is necessary to determine
whether the record supports the trial court’s findings.
{¶ 26} As to the first required finding—that consecutive sentences are necessary
to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender—the state provided a
factual narrative underlying Lake’s guilty plea that reflects both his continued
involvement in gang activities and his commission of egregious, violent offenses in
public settings. These facts support the trial court’s finding of the need to protect the
public from Lake’s commission of future crimes and the need to punish him for his prior
conduct.
{¶ 27} As to the second required finding—that consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of Lake’s conduct and the danger he poses to the
public—Lake committed two murders, two attempted murders, and participated in a
11.
criminal gang, all while brandishing firearms in the commission of those offenses. Each
murder conviction, on its own, carries a 15-years to life indefinite prison term. In
imposing sentence, the trial court stated that Lake has “no regard for human life” and
could not be “described as anything less than a cold-blooded killer.” Lake committed
two murders and two attempted murders in public settings without any regard for the
public’s safety. Further, he expressed no remorse for at least one of the murders as he
attended the victim’s funeral and rapped about the murder on social media. Based on
these facts, the record shows that the imposition of consecutive sentences was not
disproportionate to the seriousness of Lake’s conduct and the danger he poses to the
public.
{¶ 28} Lastly, the trial court held that consecutive sentences were appropriate
because Lake was awaiting trial at the time the offenses were committed, as described in
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), and because the harm caused was so great or unusual that so
single prison term adequately reflected the seriousness of his conduct, as described in
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b). While the trial court made two of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c)
“subsection” findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences, the trial court was only
obligated to make one such finding. Gwynne at ¶ 21. Further, only one of the subsection
findings must be supported in order for this court to find that the imposition of
consecutive sentences was proper. See State v. Kendall, 6th Dist. Williams No. WM-19-
024,
2021-Ohio-1551, ¶ 99 (limiting analysis to review of the trial court’s finding under
12.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) despite the trial court having also made consecutive sentence
findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) and (b)).
{¶ 29} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) permits the imposition of consecutive sentences
when “[t]he offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender
was awaiting trial or sentencing[.]” This is a “more-or-less ministerial finding” that only
requires confirmation that the offender was indeed awaiting trial or sentencing when they
committed one or more of the offenses on which consecutive sentences were imposed.
Gwynne at ¶ 15, fn. 2.
{¶ 30} The record in this matter supports the trial court’s finding that Lake
committed one or more of the offenses on which he was convicted while he was awaiting
trial. Lake was indicted in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Case no.
CR202102354 on one count of carrying concealed weapons on October 26, 2020. His
conduct underlying his convictions in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Case nos.
CR202101142, CR202101278, and CR202101800 all occurred while he was awaiting
trial in Case no. CR202102354.2 As a result, the record supports the trial court’s finding
that Lake committed one or more of the offenses upon which consecutive sentences were
imposed while he was awaiting trial.
{¶ 31} In sum, the record supports the trial court’s findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). Lake makes no reference to the record, nor could we identify any portion
2
The conduct underlying the charges in these cases occurred on December 1, 2020,
January 5, 2021, and November 1, 2020, respectively.
13.
of the record, that would clearly and convincingly show otherwise. Thus, the trial court
did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 32} Based on the foregoing, Lake’s assignments of error are not well-taken.
The October 5, 2022 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Lake is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
14.
