[Cite as State v. Stover,
2025-Ohio-458.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 113947
v. :
BRANDY STOVER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 13, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-23-686493-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Jillian Piteo and Chauncey Keller, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Flowers & Grube, Kendra N. Davitt, and Louis E. Grube,
for appellant.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J.:
Brandy Stover (“Stover”) is appealing her five-year prison sentence as
being contrary to law. Based upon our review of the record, we affirm Stover’s
sentence.
Facts and Procedural History
On November 14, 2023, Stover and her codefendant/husband, Daniel
Stover (“Daniel”), were indicted for eight counts of endangering children, third-
degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A); two counts of disseminating matter
harmful to juveniles, fourth-degree felonies in violation R.C. 2907.31(A)(1); and one
count of corrupting another with drugs, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2925.02(A)(4)(a). These charges stem from Stover and Daniel endangering their six
children that were living with them at this time.
On March 27, 2024, pursuant to a plea agreement, Stover retracted her
former not guilty pleas and pled guilty to amended Counts 1 and 7, endangering
children, third-degree felonies and to Count 5, disseminating matter harmful to
juveniles, a fourth-degree felony. The State of Ohio nolled Counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
and 11.
On April 22, 2024, Stover appeared for sentencing. The court reviewed
the presentence-investigation report (“PSI”) for Stover that included notes from
police on scene and notes from interviews with neighbors, family and her children.
The court also heard evidence from Stover’s mother, a foster parent raising one of
her children and a letter written by one of her children. After hearing all the
evidence, the trial court sentenced Stover to serve 36 months on Count 1, 12 months
on Count 5 and 24 months on Count 7. Counts 1 and 5 were ordered to be served
concurrently with one another, but prior to and consecutive with the term imposed
for Count 7, for a total of 60 months in prison. Stover’s counsel objected to the
consecutive sentences.
Stover timely appealed her sentence presenting one assignment of error
for our review:
The trial court erred or committed plain error by imposing consecutive
sentences because its findings of proportionality under R.C.
2929.14(c)(4) clearly and convincingly lack support in the record.
Based on our review of the pertinent law, we overrule this assignment of error.
Law and Argument
We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); see State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1, 16.
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that when reviewing felony sentences, a court may
overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences only where the court “clearly and
convincingly” finds that (1) “the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to
law.” State v. Jones,
2024-Ohio-1083, ¶ 12.
When imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court is required to make
the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and it must
incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177,
¶ 37. A trial court may order prison terms to be served consecutively if it 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.” R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Further, the court must also find any 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
crimes by the offender.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c).
“R.C. 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court to review the entire trial-
court record, including any oral or written statements made to or by the trial court
at the sentencing hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative
report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed.”
Jones at ¶ 12. The trial court is not obligated to state reasons to support its findings,
“[n]or is it required to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute,
provided that the necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated
into the sentencing entry.”
Bonnell at ¶ 37.
Here, during Stover’s sentencing hearing, the trial court made the
following findings on the record:
So here, I am requiring service to be — service of the sentences to be
consecutive and I do that because I find that consecutive service is
necessarily to protect the public — not just your children, but definitely
your children, but the public as well because the public is affected by
what you do or don’t do — to protect the public from future crime as
well as to punish both of you for your conduct.
I also find that these — that the consecutive service is not
disproportionate to the seriousness of your conduct. You only need
listen to the description of your children’s lives to get a sense of the
seriousness whether you concur or don’t.
Additionally, I find that these multiple offenses were committed as part
of one or more courses of conduct and that the harm caused by these
offenses, it was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any
of the offenses committed as part of these courses of conduct would
adequately reflect the seriousness of your conduct. And I base that on
the whole record, but the anecdote of the child on the roof, I mean, just
encapsulates it all.
Here the trial court found consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public
from future crime. The trial court explicitly found pursuant to the R.C. 2929.14(C)
proportionality requirement that “the consecutive service is not disproportionate to
the seriousness of your conduct.” Last, the court found pursuant to R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(b) that multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more
courses of conduct.
The court’s subsequent journal entry memorialized these findings
made on the record by stating:
The court imposes prison terms consecutively finding that consecutive
service of the prison term is necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish defendant; that the consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant’s conduct and to the
danger defendant poses to the public; and that, at least two of the
multiple offenses were committed in this case as part of one or more
courses of conduct, and the harm caused by said multiple offenses 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 defendant’s conduct.
Stover argues that the record clearly and convincingly fails to support
the trial court’s finding of proportionality in support of consecutive sentences. We
disagree. There is more than ample evidence in the record to support the court’s
finding that the consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness
of Stover’s conduct and to the danger Stover posed to the public.
The record that the trial court reviewed in this case, which included
the PSI report, was overflowing with shocking evidence of just how endangered
Stover’s six children were in living with her and her husband. Stover and her
husband both admitted to being drug addicts, which greatly affected the care they
provided their children.
The children were noted to be physically dirty and barefoot when they
were found by the police. One child, appearing to be about one year old, was seen
on the roof before police arrived. The children were all taken to MetroHealth
Hospital for triage where all six children were observed to have suffered child
neglect. Five of the six children had head lice, five had dental cavities/decay and
four had several marks, sores and bruises on various parts of their body. They
appeared to the police to not have been bathed in months. None of the children
were enrolled in school. The children reported in the PSI that the parents often left
the children alone sometimes for days during drug benders. The children also stated
that they all slept on one mattress in the house. Several children stated they
witnessed Stover doing drugs with her husband in the house and that strangers
visited often to do drugs as well. The children were all taken to live with foster
families and/or relatives.
Photographic evidence of the Stovers’ home was also reviewed by the
court, which showed their house, porch and backyard completely covered and
overflowing with trash. All windows were broken and there was no front door to the
home. An odor emanated from the house that could be smelled from the street by
police officers. There were bugs and rats inside the house. Officers on scene donned
hazmat suits when entering, and investigating inside, the house. There was no
electricity, heat or running water in the home. The children were urinating and
defecating in bowls and bottles or relieving themselves outside.
There is overwhelming evidence in the record that the conditions in
which these children were living were absolutely deplorable, vile and dangerous and
support the court’s findings for consecutive sentencing. As such, we hold that the
trial court’s proportionality finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence to
justify the consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Stover’s assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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
convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
