[Cite as State v. Murphy,
2025-Ohio-63.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-04-049
: OPINION
- vs - 1/13/2025
:
RONDA L. MURPHY, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2023-08-1167
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Michele Temmel, for appellant.
BYRNE, P.J.
{¶ 1} Ronda L. Murphy appeals from her sentence for multiple counts of cruelty
to companion animals in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons
described below, we affirm.
Butler CA2024-04-049
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In October 2023, a Butler County grand jury indicted Murphy on 23 counts.
In Counts 1 to 16, the state charged Murphy with cruelty to a companion animal (causing
serious physical harm), in violation of R.C. 959.131(C), all fifth-degree felonies. In Counts
17 to 23, the state charged Murphy with cruelty to a companion animal, in violation of
R.C. 959.131(D)(2), all second-degree misdemeanors.
{¶ 3} The indictment stemmed from allegations that law enforcement officers
located 90 adult dogs on Murphy's property that were starving, needing medical attention,
living in deplorable conditions, and confined in small cages. In addition, officers found
approximately 30 deceased dogs in various states of decay, hidden in refrigerators and
freezers, some of which were non-working. The officers seized the living dogs and
transferred them to an animal shelter.
{¶ 4} Murphy and the state subsequently negotiated a plea agreement. Murphy
agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1 to 8 (fifth-degree felonies) and Counts 17 to 20 (second-
degree misdemeanors). In return the state agreed to dismiss the remaining 11 counts of
the indictment. There was no agreement as to sentencing.
{¶ 5} At a January 2024 plea hearing, the court engaged Murphy in a plea
colloquy in which it advised her of the maximum penalties she faced by pleading guilty
and the trial rights she was waiving. Murphy subsequently entered her plea and the court
found her guilty.
{¶ 6} During the plea hearing, the prosecutor stated the following as to the
offenses:
This is a situation that on that day, they [referring to the deputy
dog wardens who investigated the case] came to the
properties of this Defendant. They found 90 living adults
dogs, 114 if you include all of the puppies that were there.
There were 18 dead dogs on the property and a handful of
-2-
Butler CA2024-04-049
dead but unrecoverable dogs because they were so liquified
that no one could scoop them up.
The indictment represented each different dog that we could
ascertain, and the difference between the felonies is that she
knowingly caused serious physical harm to many of these
dogs, eight of which she pled to. And for the misdemeanors,
she knowingly had an environment for the dogs that, basically,
nothing living, human or otherwise, should ever have to be –
should ever have to be subjected to.
She had bags and bags of dog food, but she didn't put any
dog food down for any of these dogs. She had water . . . on
the properties and would never give these dogs water. They
were crammed into tiny little spaces, multiple dogs in cages
everywhere. The smell of feces and urine made very
experienced dog wardens like vomit. They had to almost go
– they had to go outside so they didn't vomit and keep going
back in and – so I really hope that the waterworks that she's
exhibiting right now is because she actually understands the
severity of what she did to these living creatures. You can't
come in here and do victim impact statements or tell you what
they want to see happen. But thankfully, we have the dog
wardens that can do that and so that's all I'm going to say.
{¶ 7} The court ordered the probation department to complete a presentence-
investigative report ("PSI"). The court held the sentencing hearing in April 2024. Most of
the hearing concerned the issue of restitution to the animal shelter that cared for the
seized animals. After the restitution portion of the hearing, the court heard argument in
mitigation by Murphy's counsel, and a brief statement from Murphy in allocution.
{¶ 8} The court then stated the following before imposing sentence:
This is -- really a terrible case. I know you tell me, Ms. Murphy,
that you're a religious person, and I don't doubt that when you
started this thing that you had laudable ideas in mind. But
they go out there and they find these awful conditions. They're
dead, diseased, starved, and neglected dogs. The deputy
says it was the worst conditions she'd ever experienced. You
had food there, and while it was available, you didn't make it
accessible to the animals. Some of them had been there so
long that they were --- that they had, essentially, just
dissolved. Some you had placed in the freezers that weren't
-- working.
-3-
Butler CA2024-04-049
You obviously knew that there were dogs dying out there, and
you didn't do anything about it. I mean, just the most horrible
case of neglect in this case. And if you're a person who
believes in God, these are God's creatures. And I just I can't
walk past this. So like I said, I just find that you're not
amenable to available community-controlled sanctions.
{¶ 9} The court imposed consecutive sentences of 12 months in prison on counts
1, 2, 3, and 4. The court imposed a 6-month consecutive sentence on Count 5. The court
imposed concurrent sentences on the remaining counts. In the aggregate, the court
imposed a sentence of 54 months in prison. The court also ordered restitution in the
amount of $16,221.88 to the animal shelter. Finally, the court prohibited Murphy from
having companion animals.
{¶ 10} Murphy appealed, raising two assignments of error.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 Factors
{¶ 11} Murphy's first assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER
THE FACTORS IN R.C. §2929.11 AND §2929.12 AT
SENTENCING.
{¶ 12} Murphy argues that the trial court failed to consider or "overlooked" various
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 that weighed in her favor. She contends
that she had no prior offenses, was employed prior to the charges, and was remorseful.
She argues that the aggravating factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12(B) did not apply to her
conduct. And she contends that none of the recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12(D)
and (E), indicated that she was likely to recidivate. In essence, Murphy is asking this
court to reweigh the evidence relevant to the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors in her
favor and order her resentenced more leniently.
-4-
Butler CA2024-04-049
1. Standard of Review – Felony Sentencing Appeals1
{¶ 13} R.C. 2953.08(G) defines the standard of review for felony-sentencing
appeals. State v. Day, 2021-Ohio-164, ¶ 6 (12th Dist.). As applicable here, R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) provides:
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.
{¶ 14} R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutory provisions listed in
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). State v. McIntosh, 2023-Ohio-4022, ¶ 50 (12th Dist.). Therefore,
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit this court to modify or vacate a sentence based
on a lack of support in the record for the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12.
Id.
{¶ 15} Instead, our review, insofar as it concerns arguments relating to R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12, is whether Murphy has presented clear and convincing evidence
that her sentence is "otherwise contrary to law" under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v.
Iverson, 2023-Ohio-1601, ¶ 40 (12th Dist.)
{¶ 16} "A felony sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law if the trial
court considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed
in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant
within the permissible sentencing range." State v. Clinger, 2022-Ohio-3691, ¶ 39 (12th
Dist.). "Although a court imposing a felony sentence must consider the purposes of felony
1. Murphy presents no argument in this appeal concerning her sentences on the misdemeanor counts.
-5-
Butler CA2024-04-049
sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12, 'neither
R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires [the] court to make any specific factual findings on the
record.'" State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 20, quoting State v. Jones,
2020-Ohio-6729,
¶ 20.
2. Analysis
{¶ 17} Before imposing sentence, the trial court stated that it had considered the
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The court also stated that it considered
the statements of counsel and Murphy, the evidence admitted at the restitution or
reimbursement portion of the hearing, and the PSI.
{¶ 18} The prison terms on the first eight counts, all fifth-degree felonies, were six
or twelve months in prison, which is within the permissible statutory range. R.C.
2929.14(A)(5). "Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to
independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the
trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12. In particular, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct
a freestanding inquiry . . . ." Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729 at ¶ 42. Our review need go no
further. State v. Jennings,
2024-Ohio-383, ¶ 34 (12th Dist.) We overrule Murphy's first
assignment of error.
B. Consecutive Sentences
{¶ 19} Murphy's second assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
APPELLANT WHEN IT SENTENCED HER TO
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IN THE OHIO DEPARTMENT
OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS ON COUNTS
TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE.
{¶ 20} Murphy contends that the record does not support the trial court's
consecutive sentence findings. Murphy argues that consecutive sentences were
-6-
Butler CA2024-04-049
disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime and to the danger she poses to the public.
1. Applicable Law
a. Required Findings for Consecutive Sentences
{¶ 21} When imposing consecutive sentences, a sentencing 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 . . . ." State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177,
syllabus. That statute states:
(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:
(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 postrelease 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).
{¶ 22} Stated more simply, to impose consecutive sentences, a sentencing court
must find (1) "that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender[,]" (2) "that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate
-7-
Butler CA2024-04-049
to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the
public[,]" and (3) that at least one of the three conditions described in R.C.
2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) apply. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
b. Standard of Review -- Felony Sentencing Appeals
{¶ 23} As stated previously, R.C. 2953.08(G) defines the standard of review for
felony-sentencing appeals. Day, 2021-Ohio-164 at ¶ 6. As applicable here, R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) provides:
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.)
{¶ 24} "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 either that the imposition of consecutive sentences is contrary
to law because the trial court failed to make the necessary consecutive sentence findings
required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or that the record does not support the trial court's
consecutive sentence findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)." Richey at ¶ 12, citing
Shiveley at ¶ 7.
{¶ 25} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated the following standard of review
applicable to our review of consecutive sentence findings:
-8-
Butler CA2024-04-049
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.
State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5.
2. Analysis
{¶ 26} In this appeal, Murphy does not dispute that the trial court made the
consecutive sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Murphy therefore
concedes that the trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences was not clearly
and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).
{¶ 27} Instead, Murphy argues—pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)—that the
record does not support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). Specifically, Murphy challenges the trial court's findings "that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to
the danger the offender poses to the public."
{¶ 28} Based upon our review of the record on appeal, including the record of the
sentencing hearing and the PSI, we do not find that the trial court's finding that
"consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's
conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public" is clearly and convincingly
not supported by the record.
{¶ 29} In summary, the PSI reflected that in July 2023, sheriff's deputies responded
to Murphy's property for a welfare check on dogs. They found that Murphy was running
an animal rescue called "Helping Hands for Furry Paws." The PSI stated that deputies
viewed 90 dogs, including 5 litters of nursing puppies. All dogs located were living in
horrific conditions and some of the cages contained as many as 7 dogs. All dogs were
covered in feces and were without water and air conditioning.
-9-
Butler CA2024-04-049
{¶ 30} In addition, deputies discovered approximately 30 deceased dogs, most in
refrigerators and freezers, some of which were non-working. Some of the bodies were
decomposed or liquified and were unable to be removed. Eighteen deceased dogs were
identifiable and able to be seized. The PSI described the circumstances to the individual
counts of which Murphy pled guilty as follows:
Count 1: The offender starved to death dog A0053847545.
Count 2: The offender starved to death dog A0053847571.
Count 3: The offender starved to death dog A0053847541.
Count 4: The offender starved to death dog A0053845664.
Count 5: The offender failed to get medical treatment for
Homie, dog A0053845717, who had open wounds over his
body.
Count 6: The offender failed to get medical treatment for Alvin,
dog A0053845777, who had a large mass on his abdomen
and infected eyes.
Count 7: The offender failed to get medical treatment for
Bailey, dog A0058345760, who had chronic ear infections in
both of her ears.
Count 8: The offender failed to care for Gargoyle, dog
A0058346309, who had mange, hair loss and coughing.
Count 17: The offender was starving Miranda AKA Skinny
Mama, dog A0053845724, who was at the Eck residence,
higher level.
Count 18: The offender failed to provide food and water to the
three dogs at the Eck residence, lower level.
Count 19: The offender failed to provide food and water to
twenty-three dogs and puppies found caged in the Mosiman
garage.
Count 20: The offender failed to provide food and water to
eight dogs found in the Mosiman kitchen.
{¶ 31} Murphy contends that consecutive sentences were disproportionate to the
- 10 -
Butler CA2024-04-049
seriousness of her conduct. However, her argument does not focus on her conduct, but
instead focuses on herself. She argues that she was 61 years old at the time of the
offenses and had "never been in trouble" prior to these offenses. While she admits that
what happened to the dogs in her care was "horrible," she states that she was
"overwhelmed" when she took on "rescuing the dogs." She notes she was going through
a divorce and suffering from medical and psychological issues.
{¶ 32} Murphy's age, lack of a criminal record, and her personal issues do not
negate the seriousness of her conduct. Murphy's conduct resulted in numerous dogs
suffering "serious physical harm," which resulted in death or the need for urgent medical
care. The living environment that Murphy provided for these animals was described as
the "worst conditions" a deputy dog warden had ever witnessed. The pain, suffering, and
serious physical harm Murphy inflicted on numerous animals in her care was "serious"
and was not disproportionate to the consecutive sentences she received.
{¶ 33} Moreover, there were resources available to Murphy if she could not care
for these dogs and was as "overwhelmed" as she claims. The record reflects that she
refused assistance from the dog wardens when it was offered. The record indicates that
one basis she gave for refusing help was that she would be unable to generate money
from selling the puppies of the adult dogs, which belies her claim that mental or
psychological strains were the reason for her conduct.
{¶ 34} Murphy next argues that consecutive sentences were disproportionate to
the danger she poses to the public. She argues that her only offenses were against dogs
and humans were not harmed by her conduct. She again highlights that she had no
criminal record prior to these charges.
{¶ 35} We disagree. While no humans were physically harmed by Murphy's
conduct, we cannot find that the trial court's finding with respect to the danger Murphy
- 11 -
Butler CA2024-04-049
posed to the public was clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. Murphy's
conduct harmed the public due to the detrimental effect on society from the mere
knowledge that Murphy caused serious physical harm to so many vulnerable dogs. The
General Assembly has enacted special protections for certain animals that the public
views differently from other animals, and as deserving of special protection. See R.C.
959.131 (prohibiting "serious physical harm" to companion animals, which are defined as
animals "kept inside a residential dwelling" and "any dog or cat regardless of where it is
kept," and excluding "livestock or any wild animal"); see also State v. Kyles, 2024-Ohio-
5038, ¶ 15 (holding that "all dogs and cats are included [in R.C. 959.131's protections]
regardless of whether they are kept in a residential dwelling"). In other words, the public
perceives a unique harm when dogs are harmed; it does not perceive this type of harm
when an anthill is stamped underfoot. And Murphy's conduct toward the dogs in this case
was nightmarish. Murphy starved or neglected numerous dogs to the point they died and
then hid their bodies in refrigerators and freezers, which shows she was aware of the
wrongness of her conduct and was attempting to conceal her conduct. The remaining
dogs were in the process of being starved to death or seriously neglected, and otherwise
were living in the most deplorable of conditions. There is no doubt that these animals
suffered greatly. They relied on Murphy to provide food, water, shelter, and other care.
Murphy had dog food and water available for these animals but withheld it.
{¶ 36} In sum, we defer to the trial court's factual findings regarding consecutive
sentences. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851 at ¶ 5. We do not find that those findings are
clearly and convincingly not support by the record.
Id. To the contrary, we find
overwhelming support for the trial court's findings. We overrule Murphy's second
assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
- 12 -
Butler CA2024-04-049
{¶ 37} Murphy has failed to establish error in the imposition of her sentence. The
trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and her sentence was not
contrary to law. The trial court's factual findings as to consecutive sentences were not
clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.
{¶ 38} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
- 13 -
