[Cite as State v. Buck,
2024-Ohio-4718.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1239
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202301100
v.
Allen J. Buck DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 27, 2024
…
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Karin L. Coble, for appellant.
…
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the judgment by the Lucas County Court of Common
Pleas, General Division, which sentenced appellant, Allen J. Buck, to a total prison term
of 252 months, of which 120 months are mandatory, for 16 felonies of sexually-related
offenses, after the trial court accepted appellant’s guilty pleas and convicted him of those
offenses. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the trial court’s judgment.
I. Background
{¶ 2} The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On January 19, 2023, a Lucas
County Grand Jury issued indictments against the 21-year-old appellant for 20 offenses:
14 counts of importuning, violations of R.C. 2907.07(D)(1) and 2907.07(F)(1), and
fourth-degree felonies under R.C. 2907.07(F)(3); five counts of pandering obscenity,
violations of R.C. 2907.32(A)(2), and fourth-degree felonies under R.C. 2907.32(C); and
one count of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person, a
violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), and a fourth-degree felony under R.C. 2907.322(C).
Appellee, state of Ohio, alleged that previously on July 24, 2020, appellant was convicted
of a sexually-oriented offense, attempted pandering obscenity, a violation of R.C.
2923.02 and 2907.32(A)(2) and (C). That victim was a minor child, and appellant
completed his sanction for that offense in 2021. Then within one year, between August
17 and September 7, 2022, on at least 20 occasions appellant knowingly possessed
material showing a minor engaging in sexual activity, displayed for public viewing or
sale obscene material (which included his genitalia), and used Facebook to solicit sexual
activity with the victim who he knew was only 13 years old.
{¶ 3} After initially pleading not guilty to the charges, appellant changed his plea
on August 7, 2023. Appellant pled guilty to 16 of the 20 indicted offenses, where
appellee agreed to dismiss the last four of the 14 importuning offenses and to not seek an
indictment for an additional 25 violations of importuning by appellant to the victim
documented in the Facebook messages. Following the plea colloquy, the trial court
2.
accepted appellant’s guilty pleas as knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and
found appellant guilty of those 16 offenses. The trial court ordered a presentence
investigation report. During the presentence investigation, appellant stated that had the
13-year-old victim accepted his sexual advances, he would have had sex with the minor.
Appellant claimed the victim provoked him. At sentencing, appellee called that an
appalling lack of accountability.
{¶ 4} The trial court sentenced appellant on September 18, 2023, to serve the
following prison terms consecutively under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4): 12 months for pandering
sexually oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person; 12 months for each of the
five pandering obscenity offenses; and 18 months, of which 12 months is mandatory, for
each of the 10 importuning offenses. The total period of incarceration is 252 months of
which 120 months are mandatory, among other matters imposed at sentencing.
{¶ 5} In reaching its sentencing decision, the trial court identified the
psychological harm the victim suffered from receiving the numerous, unwanted, and
obscene communications from appellant. The trial court “found that the defendant’s . . .
relationship with the victim facilitated the offense[s], which is more serious.” The trial
court then determined appellant continued to be a threat to the community, especially to
minor children, because he committed these offenses despite a recent conviction and
sentence for a previous sexually-oriented offense towards a minor child. The trial court
continued:
3.
The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect
the public from future crime and to punish the defendant and [are] not
disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct or the danger
he poses. These offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of
conduct, and the harm caused was so great or unusual that no single prison
term of any of the offenses committed as part of the course of conduct
adequately reflects the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct. And
although his criminal history is limited, that history clearly requires, for
these types of offenses, consecutive sentences are necessary.
{¶ 6} Appellant timely appealed setting forth one assignment of error: “Mr.
Buck’s sentence is clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.”
II. Consecutive, Felony Sentences
{¶ 7} In support of his assignment of error, appellant admits his sentence is not
contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), and he is not challenging the validity of his
16 guilty pleas. Rather, appellant “humbly requests this Court re-consider his sentence as
too lengthy given the statutory guidelines and the record.” Appellant argues the record
lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the findings under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)
because the trial court had discretion under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(iv) to impose prison
terms for the 16 convictions. Appellee further argues his consecutive sentences should be
reversed because there is no evidence of “great or unusual harm,” and the total term of
incarceration is disproportionate to the 16 fourth-degree felony offenses.
4.
{¶ 8} In response, appellee argues, citing State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, that
the felony sentence findings under R.C. 2953.08 must be made on appellate review of a
consecutive sentence. Appellee further argues that the trial court made all its findings
clearly and convincingly in the record to support its determination of the 16 consecutive
sentences.
{¶ 9} Appellant incorrectly implies our review of felony sentencing is an abuse-of-
discretion standard. We review a challenge to felony sentencing pursuant to R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. McIntoush, 2024-Ohio-2284, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.). “R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may only increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify consecutive sentences if the record does not ‘“clearly and convincingly” support
the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive sentence findings.”’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting
Gwynne at ¶ 13. The Ohio Supreme Court guides appellate courts that under R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(a), “clear and convincing” means “‘a firm belief or conviction that the
record does not support the trial court’s findings before it may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify consecutive sentences’” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Id., quoting
Gwynne at ¶ 15.
{¶ 10} The three findings the trial court must determine to support consecutive
sentences are: “(1) consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender; (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public;
and (3) one or more of the findings listed in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c).” Id. at ¶
5.
16. The trial court’s findings need not contain specific words or reasoning so long as the
record contains some evidence to support the findings and incorporated into the
sentencing entry. Id. at ¶ 18.
{¶ 11} “The plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to
defer to a trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court’s findings must
be upheld unless those findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the
record.” Gwynne at ¶ 5.
{¶ 12} Appellant’s argument on appeal does not dispute the trial court’s
determination of the first finding of the consecutive-sentences requirement, that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the
offender. Appellant specifically does not contest his 16 guilty pleas and are complete
admissions of his guilt of those offenses. That includes 10 guilty pleas to violating R.C.
2907.07(D)(1), which are fourth-degree felonies under R.C. 2907.07(F)(3) because of his
previous conviction, in 2020, for a sexually-oriented offense, which then triggered the
mandatory prison terms of “not less than twelve months” per offense. That also includes
five guilty pleas to violating R.C. 2907.32(A)(2), which are fourth-degree felonies under
R.C. 2907.32(C), because of his previous conviction for an R.C. 2907.32 offense.
{¶ 13} Given the uncontested first finding, we find the trial court’s determination
of the third finding of the consecutive-sentences requirement, one of three options, is also
met under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), which states, “The offender’s history of criminal
conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
6.
future crime by the offender.” McIntoush at ¶ 17. The trial court specifically reviewed
appellant’s criminal history, although limited, with sexually-oriented offenses involving
two different victims, each a minor child. The trial court also identified that the most
recent offenses occurred within one year of completing his sanction for the prior
conviction.
{¶ 14} Appellant’s argument on appeal challenges the second finding of the
consecutive-sentences requirement, that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to
the seriousness of his conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. However, the only
basis he provides is a vague allegation of a lack of evidence of “great or unusual harm.”
Appellant’s challenge to the evidence of “great or unusual harm” is misplaced because it
refers to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b), which is not a mandatory factor where R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(c) is found. Id. at ¶ 22. Applying the deferential standard in R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), we cannot say the record does not clearly and convincingly support the
trial court’s findings of consecutive sentences for the 16 felony convictions. Id.
{¶ 15} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 16} On consideration whereof, we find that substantial justice has been done in
this matter. The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, General
Division, is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
7.
State of Ohio
v. Allen J. Buck
C.A. No. L-23-1239
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
Myron C. Duhart, J.
____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, P.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/.
8.
