Consecutive Sentence; Required Findings. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences when it made the necessary findings which were supported by the record.
Decided 2025-03-10
[Cite as State v. Loomis,
2025-Ohio-789
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
UNION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 14-24-33
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSHUA RYAN LOOMIS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 23-CR-0232
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 10, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Andrew M. Bigler for Appellee
Case No. 14-24-33
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Joshua Ryan Loomis (“Loomis”) brings this
appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County finding
him guilty of one count of Attempted Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity and
sentencing him to a prison term of 30 months. On appeal Loomis claims that the
trial court erred by ordering the sentence to run consecutive to the sentence imposed
in a different case without making the findings for consecutive sentences. For the
reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On May 15, 2024, Loomis voluntarily entered a guilty plea to one count
of attempted engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.02,
2923.32(A)(1), (B)(1), a felony of the third degree. A sentencing hearing was held
on July 3, 2024. The trial court ordered Loomis to serve a 30 month prison term
and then ordered that the sentence be served consecutive to a sentence imposed on
Loomis in Franklin County. In doing so, the trial court made the following findings
regarding consecutive sentences.
The court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the
public from future crime and to punish the defendant. Consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
defendant’s conduct or the danger he poses to the public. The – there
are multiple offenses. The defendant has a significant history.
Therefore, the court imposes a 30 month sentence to run consecutive
to Franklin County.
-2-
Case No. 14-24-33
Tr. 7.1 These findings were repeated in the sentencing entry.
The Court further finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime and to punish the Defendant and
that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness
of the Defendant’s conduct and to the danger the Defendant poses to
the public.
The Court further finds that 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 [R.C. 2929.16,
2929.17, or 2929.18], or was under post-release control for a prior
offense.
The Court further finds that the Defendant’s history of criminal
conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime by the Defendant.
Doc. 54 at 7-8. The findings were supported by the presentence investigation
(“PSI”). Loomis appeals from the sentence imposed and raises the following
assignment of error on appeal.
The trial court erred when it ordered [Loomis’s] sentence to run
consecutive to the sentence he received from Franklin County.
{¶3} To impose consecutive sentences, a trial court is required to make
certain findings at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry. R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) provides:
(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
1
The trial court also informed Loomis that it would consider granting him judicial release after he completed
six months of his sentence.
-3-
Case No. 14-24-33
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 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
crime by the offender.
R.C. 2929.14(C). In making these findings, the trial court is not required to use the
exact words of the statute as long as the necessary findings can be found in the
record and are incorporated into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-
3177, ¶ 29.
{¶4} Here, the trial court specifically made the findings that the sentence was
necessary to protect the public from future crime and that the sentence was not
disproportionate to the seriousness of Loomis’s conduct and to the danger Loomis
posed to the public. The trial court also noted that Loomis had an extensive criminal
history pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). This finding was supported by the
information in the PSI. Although the sentencing entry contains an additional finding
(that the offense was committed while Loomis was on post-release control), the
-4-
Case No. 14-24-33
statute only requires the trial court to find one factor. The fact that the sentencing
entry contained two of the statutory factors rather than only one does not affect the
validity of the sentence. As the trial court made the required findings at the
sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry, the assignment of error is overruled.
{¶5} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls
-5-
