Full Opinion

[Cite as State v. Michaels, 2026-Ohio-4446.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-T-0048 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas HAROLD MICHAELS, Trial Court No. 2024 CR 00853 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: November 9, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Charles L. Morrow, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Martin Yavorcik, 940 Windham Court, Suite 7, Youngstown, OH 44512 (For Defendant- Appellant). MATT LYNCH, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Harold Michaels, appeals the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to a total nine-year term of imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary and three counts of breaking and entering. {¶2} Michaels challenges his sentence, arguing that the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish him. After a careful review of Michaels’ argument, the record, and the pertinent law, we find his assignment of error to be without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Substantive and Procedural History {¶3} In September 2024, a Trumbull County grand jury indicted Michaels on nine counts: Count (1) burglary, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and (D); Count (2) burglary, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3) and (D); Counts (3), (4), (5), and (6) breaking and entering, fifth-degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A) and (C); Count (7) grand theft, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(1) and (2); and Counts (8) and (9) theft, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(1) and (2). {¶4} In July 2025, at a change of plea hearing, Michaels pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary (amended Count 1 and Count 2), third-degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3) and (D); and three counts of breaking and entering (Counts 4, 5, and 6), fifth-degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A) and (C). Michaels also agreed to pay restitution to the victims. In exchange, the State moved to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment. {¶5} The Stated recited the factual basis of Michaels’ offenses, which reflected that Michaels broke into five different homes and garages and stole various items in Howland and Champion Townships on November 5, November 14, and December 10, 2023. {¶6} In November 2025, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The court heard from several of the victims; defense counsel, who advocated for a sentence of community control; the prosecutor, who noted Michaels had a pending charge for receiving stolen property; and Michaels. The trial court stated it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11, and the seriousness PAGE 2 OF 8 Case No. 2026-T-0048 and recidivism factors as set forth in R.C. 2929.12, and noted Michaels has nine prior felony convictions, served seven prison sentences, and is at a high risk of reoffending. The court found consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crimes, not disproportionate to the seriousness of Michaels’ conduct and the danger he poses to the public, and Michaels’ history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime committed by him. The court sentenced Michaels to 36-month terms of imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, burglary; and 12-month terms of imprisonment on Counts 4, 5, and 6, breaking and entering. The court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of 108 months. The court also ordered Michaels to pay approximately $10,000 in restitution to the victims. {¶7} Michaels timely appealed and raises one assignment of error for our review: {¶8} “The trial court erred in ordering Appellant to serve consecutive prison terms because the record does not clearly and convincingly support the finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that consecutive service was necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender.” Consecutive Sentences {¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Michaels contends the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Michaels concedes prison was justified given his prior record and the seriousness of his crimes, the record supports a term of imprisonment, and the trial court made the required statutory findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences. However, he argues the evidence at the sentencing hearing reflects that consecutive sentences were not PAGE 3 OF 8 Case No. 2026-T-0048 necessary and concurrent sentences were warranted because he accepted responsibility for his offenses by pleading guilty and agreeing to pay restitution, he maintained employment and obtained vocational certification as a plumber, and he has substantial family and community support. {¶10} “The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence] shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “The standard to be applied is the standard set forth in the statute: an appellate court has the authority to increase, reduce, otherwise modify, or vacate a sentence only after it has reviewed the entire trial-court record and ‘clearly and convincingly f[ound] either . . . [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [certain statutes including R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]’ or ‘[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,’ R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083, ¶ 13; accord State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 (“an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal 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”). {¶11} R.C. 2929.41 creates a statutory presumption in favor of concurrent sentences, providing, in pertinent part, that “[e]xcept 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 . . . .” R.C. 2929.41(A). R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), in turn, provides, “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 it finds (1) “the PAGE 4 OF 8 Case No. 2026-T-0048 consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender”; (2) “consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public”; and (3) 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. Id. {¶12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held, “In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial 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, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.” State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. The trial court 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.” Id. Otherwise, the imposition of consecutive sentences is contrary to law. See id. {¶13} In addition, “as long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record contains evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” Id. at ¶ 29. “In other PAGE 5 OF 8 Case No. 2026-T-0048 words, ‘If the court has properly made the required findings in order to impose consecutive sentences, we must affirm those sentences unless we “clearly and convincingly” find “[t]hat the record does not support the court’s findings[.]”’” State v. Haynes, 2022-Ohio- 4464, ¶ 48 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.), quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). {¶14} “‘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.’ The standard of review is deferential, and the appellate court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” State v. Polizzi, 2026-Ohio-2588, ¶ 21, quoting State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5, 15 (lead opinion). {¶15} Because Michaels failed to object to the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing, he has forfeited all but plain error review on appeal. “When the record demonstrates that the trial court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences . . ., the appellant’s sentence is contrary to law and constitutes plain error.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Haworth, 2020-Ohio-1326, ¶ 40 (11th Dist.). {¶16} As Michaels concedes, the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry. Further, the trial court reviewed Michaels’ extensive criminal history and the fact that he was charged with a similar offense while the instant matter was pending below. {¶17} While Michaels admits his offenses are “serious,” he argues concurrent sentences would be more appropriate because he committed “nonviolent property PAGE 6 OF 8 Case No. 2026-T-0048 offenses.” Michaels’ argument diminishes the effects of his offenses and the severity of harm they caused. Several of the victims testified to the psychological trauma as well as the economic harm they have suffered as a result of Michaels’ conduct. In short, this is not the case where the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences were “necessary” is clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. See Pollizzi, 2026-Ohio-2588, at ¶ 21. {¶18} Accordingly, Michaels’ sole assignment of merit is not well taken. {¶19} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. ROBERT J. PATTON, J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur. PAGE 7 OF 8 Case No. 2026-T-0048 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant. PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. PAGE 8 OF 8 Case No. 2026-T-0048