[Cite as State v. Webb,
2025-Ohio-793.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 8-24-30
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
SEAN C. WEBB, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR 23 08 0179
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 10, 2025
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
Eric C. Stewart for Appellee
Case No. 8-24-30
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Sean C. Webb (“Webb”), appeals the May 14,
2024 judgment entry of sentencing of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On August 9, 2023, the Logan County Grand Jury indicted Webb on
Count One of complicity to burglary in violation of R.C. 2923.03 and
2911.12(A)(2), a second-degree felony, and Count Two of complicity to grand theft
of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.03 and 2913.02(A)(1), a fourth-degree
felony. Webb appeared for arraignment on August 11, 2023, and entered pleas of
not guilty.
{¶3} On March 21, 2024, Webb withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered
a guilty plea, under a negotiated-plea agreement, to Count Two of the indictment.
In exchange for Webb’s change of plea, the State agreed to dismiss Count One. The
trial court accepted Webb’s guilty plea, found him guilty, and ordered a presentence
investigation (“PSI”).
{¶4} On May 14, 2024, the trial court sentenced Webb to 18 months in
prison. The trial court further ordered that Webb serve the prison term
consecutively to the prison sentence in a case in another county.
{¶5} On June 3, 2024, Webb filed a notice of appeal. He raises one
assignment of error for our review.
-2-
Case No. 8-24-30
Assignment of Error
By clear and convincing evidence, the record does not support the
trial court’s consecutive sentences findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4).
{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Webb argues that his consecutive
sentence is not supported by the record.
Standard of Review
{¶7} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce,
otherwise modify, or vacate a sentence “only if it determines by clear and
convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under
relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum,
2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce
in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to
be established.’” Marcum at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford,
161 Ohio St. 469
(1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
Analysis
{¶8} “Except as provided in . . . division (C) of section 2929.14, . . . a prison
term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently with any
other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of this
state, another state, or the United States.” R.C. 2929.41(A). In pertinent part, R.C.
2929.14(C) provides:
-3-
Case No. 8-24-30
(4) . . . [T]he 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 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.
{¶9} Thus, when imposing a consecutive sentence, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)
requires the trial court to make specific findings on the record. State v. Hites, 2012-
Ohio-1892, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.). “Specifically, the trial court must find: (1) consecutive
sentences are necessary to either protect the public or punish the offender; (2) the
sentences would not be disproportionate to the offense committed; and (3) one of
the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) applies.” State v. Runyon, 2024-
Ohio-5039, ¶ 23 (3d Dist.). Further, the trial court must state the required findings
at the sentencing hearing and incorporate those findings into its sentencing entry.
State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. The trial court “has no obligation to state
-4-
Case No. 8-24-30
reasons to support its findings” and is not “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.
{¶10} In this case, the trial court stated the following at the sentencing
hearing:
The [C]ourt finds 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 defendant’s history of
criminal conduct demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime by the defendant and that the
defendant was on post-release control at the time he committed the
offense.
(Emphasis added.) (May 14, 2024 Tr. at 15). Moreover, the trial court incorporated
the foregoing into its sentencing entry as follows:
The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect
the public from future crime and/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. 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. The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
(Emphasis added.) (Doc. No. 40). Accordingly, the trial court made the appropriate
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings necessary to impose a consecutive sentence.
-5-
Case No. 8-24-30
{¶11} On appeal, Webb concedes that “the trial court made the required
findings to support a consecutive sentence under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” (Appellant’s
Brief at 4). Nonetheless, Webb argues that consecutive sentences are not “necessary
to protect the public or punish Webb” and are not proportionate “to the seriousness
of Webb’s conduct and the danger he poses to the public.” (Id. at 5). Webb contends
that the offense in this case was prompted by his long history of drug abuse and the
need for money to support his addiction. Webb further contends that since the
offense did not involve violence and he “took responsibility for his actions,” the
record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings. (Id. at
6).
{¶12} Webb’s argument is without merit because the trial court’s
consecutive sentence is supported by the record. Specifically, the record supports
the trial court’s conclusion under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) that Webb committed the
instant offense while under post-release control for a prior offense. See State v.
Thomas, 2020-Ohio-5468, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.). Moreover, Webb acknowledges that he
“was clearly on post-release control at the time of this offense.” (Appellant’s Brief
at 5). Because only one R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) factor needs to be supported by
the record, we need not address Webb’s argument regarding the trial court’s findings
under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) or (c). See
Thomas at ¶ 20. Therefore, we conclude
that the record supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
-6-
Case No. 8-24-30
{¶13} Webb’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶14} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/hls
-7-
