[Cite as State v. Halbert,
2024-Ohio-2534.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-01-003
: OPINION
- vs - 7/1/2024
:
EDWARD HALBERT, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 20CR37130
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Edward Halbert, appeals the decision of the Warren County
Court of Common Pleas ordering the 15-year-to-life prison sentence he received for
murdering his cellmate at the Warren County Correctional Institution to be served
consecutively to the prison sentence he was currently serving at the time of the murder.
Warren CA2024-01-003
For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.
{¶ 2} On March 1, 2023, following a three-day jury trial, Halbert was found guilty
of murdering his cellmate, Delvin Bunton, while both men were inmates incarcerated at
the Warren County Correctional Institution.1 Upon the return of the jury's verdict, the trial
court issued a decision sentencing Halbert to serve a term of 15 years to life in prison for
Bunton's murder. The trial court ordered that 15-year-to-life prison sentence be served
consecutively to the prison sentence that Halbert was currently serving at the time of
Bunton's murder. Halbert appealed the jury's verdict and the trial court's sentence. This
court affirmed the jury's verdict finding Halbert guilty of murdering Bunton, but reversed
the trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Halbert, 2023-Ohio-
4471 (12th Dist.) ("Halbert I").
{¶ 3} In so doing, this court noted that the record did not "reflect that the court
addressed the required proportionality finding or engaged in the proportionality analysis
and found that the seriousness of Halbert's conduct and the danger he posed to the public
justified a consecutive sentence." Id. at ¶ 35. This court therefore vacated that portion
of the trial court's judgment imposing consecutive sentences and remanded the matter to
the trial court for resentencing. On remand, we instructed the trial court that it:
shall consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate
under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and if so, shall make the required
statutory findings on the record at resentencing and
incorporate its findings into a sentencing entry.
Id. at ¶ 38.
{¶ 4} On January 22, 2024, the trial court held the necessary resentencing
1. The record indicates that prior to murdering Bunton, Halbert had been in prison for over 40 years, first
beginning in the early 1980's, on charges of robbery, aggravated robbery, attempted rape, rape, and
assault.
-2-
Warren CA2024-01-003
hearing as instructed by this court in Halbert I. This ultimately resulted in the trial court
sentencing Halbert to the same 15-year-to-life prison sentence that the court had
originally imposed. This time, however, the trial court made the necessary consecutive
sentence findings as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). In so doing, the trial court stated:
Okay. Defendant's history demonstrates consecutive
sentences are necessary to … protect the public from future
crime by the defendant. That the sentences are consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
offender's conduct and to the danger of the offender⎯that the
offender poses to the public. I've considered that. And, again,
the finding that his history demonstrates consecutive
sentences are necessary.
Upon the conclusion of the trial court's resentencing hearing, the trial court filed its
judgment entry of sentence. Incorporated into that entry were the trial court's consecutive
sentence findings set forth above.
{¶ 5} On January 23, 2024, Halbert filed a notice of appeal. Following briefing
from both parties, the case was submitted to this court for consideration on May 22, 2024.
Halbert's appeal now properly before this court for decision, Halbert raises one
assignment of error for review. In that single assignment of error, Halbert argues the trial
court erred by imposing consecutive sentences upon remand in this case from Halbert I.
We disagree.
{¶ 6} "A felony sentence is reviewed under the standard set forth in R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)." State v. Downing, 2024-Ohio-381, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). Pursuant to that
statute:
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
-3-
Warren CA2024-01-003
either of the following:
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;
That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
Therefore, given the plain language set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b), this court
may modify or vacate a felony sentence only if, by clear and convincing evidence, the
record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes, or the sentence
is otherwise contrary to law. State v. Harp, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 7} "The consecutive sentence statute, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), is one of the
relevant statutes specifically mentioned in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)." State v. Richey, 2023-
Ohio-336, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). "Thus, there are two ways that a defendant can challenge
consecutive sentences on appeal." State v. Shiveley, 2022-Ohio-4036, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.).
The defendant can argue that, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), the record does not
support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
State v. Morris,
2023-Ohio-3412, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.). The defendant can also argue that,
pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the imposition of consecutive sentences is contrary to
law because the trial court failed to make the necessary consecutive sentence findings
as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Iverson,
2023-Ohio-1601, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.).
"These are the only two means that the legislature provided to defendants to challenge
their consecutive sentences on appeal." State v. Perry,
2023-Ohio-3106, ¶ 25 (12th
Dist.).
{¶ 8} To support his claim that it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive
sentences upon remand in this case from Halbert I, Halbert initially argues that he "suffers
from severe mental health issues which cloud his judgment." Halbert also argues that
-4-
Warren CA2024-01-003
the evidence in this case reveals that the victim, Bunton, was not simply an "innocent
bystander who was attacked unprovoked." Halbert argues that the evidence instead
demonstrates that Bunton "participated in, as well as proposed," the "scheme" that
ultimately resulted in his death. That being, a plan for Halbert to assist Bunton in making
a fake suicide attempt so that Bunton could obtain a transfer to a different correctional
facility within Ohio.
{¶ 9} However, even if we were to ignore the fact that this court has already
rejected Halbert's claim that "the evidence shows that [he] merely intended to 'help'
Bunton by 'fak[ing] a suicide attempt, not to harm' him" when affirming the jury's verdict
finding Halbert guilty of murder in Halbert I, 2023-Ohio-4471 at ¶ 21-27 (12th Dist.),
neither of Halbert's arguments raised herein present any challenge to whether, in
accordance with R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the trial court made the necessary consecutive
sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Halbert's arguments also do not
contest whether, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the record supports the trial court's
consecutive sentence findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Therefore, because
these were the only two means the legislature provided to defendants like Halbert to
challenge a trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences on appeal, neither of which
Halbert raised in this case, Halbert's claim that it was error for the trial court to impose
consecutive sentences upon remand from this court in Halbert I lacks merit. Accordingly,
finding no merit to Halbert's claim raised herein, Halbert's single assignment of error lacks
merit and is overruled.
{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
-5-
