State v. Beatty
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | CA2021-10-057 |
| Citation | 191 N.E.3d 1228 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. Aunrico William Baker BEATTY, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Mark L. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nicholas A. Horton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
{¶ 1} On December 22, 2020, appellant, Aunrico William Baker Beatty, was charged by indictment with 11 criminal counts arising from a shooting he was alleged to have perpetrated. Following a jury trial, Baker Beatty was found guilty of Counts 5 through 8, felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) ; Count 9, discharge of firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) ; and Count 10, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B). Each of these counts carried a firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A), of which Baker Beatty was also found guilty.
{¶ 2} On September 24, 2021, Baker Beatty was sentenced to indefinite prison terms of four to six years for each of the four felonious assault offenses, a definite prison term of 18 months for the discharge of firearm on or near prohibited premises offense, and a definite prison term of 12 months for the improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle offense. These prison terms were ordered to be served concurrently with each other. The court further sentenced Baker Beatty to three-year prison terms for each firearm specification attached to Counts 5 through 8, to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively and prior to the four underlying felonious assault offenses. The aggregate prison term ordered was 16 to 18 years.
{¶ 3} Baker Beatty timely appealed his sentence, raising the following assignment of error:
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ON THE DISCRETIONARY PRISON TERMS IMPOSED ON TWO FIREARMS SPECIFICATIONS.
{¶ 5} Baker Beatty argues that the trial court erred in ordering that the prison terms imposed for the third and fourth firearm specification convictions be served consecutively to all other prison terms. Prison terms imposed for firearm specifications will hereinafter be referred to as "firearm prison terms," and the firearm prison terms imposed for the third and fourth firearm specifications herein will be referred to as the "additional firearm prison terms."
{¶ 6} An appellate court generally reviews felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. McCoy , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-12-127, 2022-Ohio-995, 2022 WL 899906, ¶ 19. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if the appellate court finds 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. Gilbert , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-11-116, 2021-Ohio-2810, 2021 WL 3621800, ¶ 8. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11, as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12 and sentences a defendant within the permissible statutory range. State v. Fannin , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-03-022, 2021-Ohio-2462, 2021 WL 3028051, ¶ 78.
{¶ 7} In the present case, each count of which Baker Beatty was convicted carried a firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). If an offender who is convicted of a felony is also convicted of a firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145, "the court shall impose on the offender * * * [a] prison term of three years." R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a)(ii).
{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b), a trial court generally may not impose multiple firearm prison terms for felonies that were committed as part of the same act or transaction. State v. Peters , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-09-069, 2015-Ohio-2013, 2015 WL 3385040, ¶ 18. However, if an offender is convicted of two or more felonies, one or more of which is felonious assault, and if the offender is convicted of a firearm specification in connection with two or more of the felonies, "the sentencing court shall impose on the offender the prison term specified under [ R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a) ] for each of the two most serious specifications of which the offender is convicted." R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). Additionally, "in its discretion, [the sentencing court] also may impose on the offender the prison term specified under [ R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a) ] for any or all of the remaining specifications." Id.
{¶ 10} The trial court was required to order three-year prison terms for the two most serious firearm specifications attached to Baker Beatty's felonious assault convictions and was permitted to impose prison terms for each of the remaining specifications. The court fulfilled its duty to order the firearm prison terms for the two most serious specifications, chose to order the additional firearm prison terms for the specifications attached to the other two felonious assault counts, made consecutive sentence findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and ordered that all four firearm prison terms be served consecutively to all other prison terms imposed.
{¶ 11} Baker Beatty argues that R.C. 2929.14(C)(1) (Emphasis added.) Baker Beatty contends that the additional firearm prison terms are not "mandatory prison terms" and that the trial court erred in ordering that those prison terms be served consecutively to all other prison terms that were imposed.
{¶ 12} The state asserts that R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), not R.C. 2929.14(C)(1), controls in authorizing imposition of a consecutive sentence for the additional firearm prison terms. The state alternatively argues that the additional firearm prison terms are "mandatory" pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b), which provides that a firearm prison term is not subject to reduction.
{¶ 13} As to the state's first argument, there is nothing in the text of R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) addressing whether firearm prison terms should be served consecutively to any other prison term. R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) applies when an offender is convicted of multiple same act or transaction felony offenses and multiple attached firearm specifications and at least one of the felony offenses of which the offender was convicted is among those enumerated in the statute. Within this context, R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) does three things. First, it creates an exception to the general rule of R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) that not more than one firearm prison term may be imposed upon an offender for felonies committed as part of the same act or transaction. Second, it requires imposition of prison terms for the two most serious firearm specifications. Third, it permits imposition of firearm prison terms in addition to those for the two most serious. R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) neither states nor implies anything about whether firearm prison terms must be served consecutively, concurrently, or otherwise.
{¶ 14} We recognize that the foregoing conflicts with our opinion in State v. Isreal , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-11-115, 2012-Ohio-4876, 2012 WL 5193390. Isreal involved the imposition of prison terms for the two most serious firearm specifications as required by R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) and a third firearm prison term as permitted by that statute. All the firearm prison terms were ordered to be served consecutively. Isreal argued on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering the firearm prison terms to be served consecutively, as they arose from the same act or transaction and should therefore be served concurrently. We rejected Isreal's argument, finding that R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) implied that all firearm specification prison terms are to be served consecutively and held that "pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), sentences for multiple gun specifications should be run consecutive to each other." Isreal at ¶ 72.
{¶ 15} In Isreal we relied upon State v. Glenn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97314, 2012-Ohio-3075, 2012 WL 2580773 and State v. Fischer, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26110, 2012-Ohio-3665, 2012 WL 3517356. However, neither Glenn nor Fischer considered whether a firearm prison term imposed at the sentencing court's discretion pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) must be served consecutively to any other prison term. Although Glenn upheld a sentence calling for the consecutive service of three "same act or transaction" firearm prison terms, it did not discuss the propriety of the order for consecutive service of the prison terms, and resolved the appeal by merely observing that that R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) permitted the trial court to impose the third, discretionary firearm prison...
To continue reading
Request your trial