State v. Boyd

[Cite as State v. Boyd, 2026-Ohio-3287.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO MADISON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-11-031 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 8/24/2026 TRAJEAN E. BOYD, : Appellant. : : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 20220258 Nicholas A. Adkins, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael S. Klamo, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee. Shannon M. Treynor, for appellant. ____________ OPINION PIPER, P.J. {¶ 1} Appellant, TraJean E. Boyd, appeals his sentence in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.  Madison CA2025-11-031 I. Factual and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On October 31, 2020, Boyd was driving 100 mph on Interstate 70 when a state trooper initiated a pursuit. Boyd refused to stop and accelerated to speeds reaching 120 mph. During the pursuit, Boyd used both the left shoulder and right berm to pass other vehicles. Boyd eventually exited onto State Route 42, where he continued fleeing at speeds between 90 and 100 mph. He weaved through traffic, crossed a double-yellow line, and nearly collided with an oncoming vehicle. The trooper terminated the pursuit after Boyd entered the London city limits because of the danger to other motorists and bystanders. Boyd later abandoned his vehicle behind a Kroger grocery store, fled on foot, and was eventually arrested. London police recovered Boyd’s vehicle and discovered counterfeiting equipment inside. {¶ 3} On November 6, 2020, Boyd was indicted in Madison County on two charges: Failure to Comply, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), a third-degree felony; and Receiving Stolen Property, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a fifth-degree felony. On March 2, 2021, Boyd failed to appear for a pretrial hearing, and the court issued a capias. While the Madison County case stood pending, Boyd was arrested in several other counties and was ultimately convicted of multiple state and federal counterfeiting offenses. Beginning in June 2022, Boyd remained continuously incarcerated for his other state offenses. He also received a four-year federal sentence, which he was ordered to serve after completing his state prison terms. {¶ 4} On December 16, 2022, a second indictment was filed in Madison County. That indictment charged Boyd with Forgery, in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), a fifth- degree felony; Possession of Criminal Tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A), a fifth- -2-  Madison CA2025-11-031 degree felony; Counterfeiting, in violation of R.C. 2913.30(B)(4), a third-degree felony; and two counts of Identification Fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.49(B)(1), both fifth-degree felonies. {¶ 5} After Boyd completed his prison terms for the other state offenses, but before he began serving his federal sentence, he was transferred back to Madison County. On September 16, 2025, Boyd pleaded guilty to Failure to Comply, Forgery, and one count of Identity Fraud. The remaining counts were dismissed. {¶ 6} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on October 24, 2025. The court imposed a 30-month prison term for Boyd’s Failure to Comply offense and ordered that term to run consecutively to his federal sentence. The court also imposed six months for Forgery and six months for Identity Fraud. Those terms were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with Boyd’s federal sentence, but consecutively to the Failure to Comply sentence, resulting in an aggregate 36-month prison sentence as to this case. {¶ 7} Boyd now appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review. II. Legal Analysis {¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1: THE COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING SENTENCE CONSECUTIVE TO THE DEFENDANT'S FEDERAL PENITENTIARY SENTENCE IMPOSED BUT NOT YET SERVED. {¶ 9} In his single assignment of error, Boyd argues the trial court erred by "imposing the entirety of the sentence consecutive to that of the Federal sentence imposed, but not yet served" without first making findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). This is inaccurate; the trial court only ordered the 30-month term for his Failure to Comply Offense to run consecutive to his federal sentence, while it explicitly stated that his six- -3-  Madison CA2025-11-031 month terms for his two other offenses would run concurrently to each other and to his federal sentence. The parties agree that the trial court made no consecutive-sentence findings. However, as the State correctly notes, those findings were unnecessary because Boyd’s sentence for Failure to Comply was required by law to be served consecutively. {¶ 10} We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio- 1002, ¶ 1; State v. Abrams, 2017-Ohio-8536, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.). Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court does not review the sentencing court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Marcum at ¶ 10. Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) compels an appellate court to 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." Id. at ¶ 1. {¶ 11} R.C. 2929.14(C)(3) provides that if a prison term is imposed for a violation of "2921.331 of the Revised Code, the offender shall serve that prison term consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender." (Emphasis added.) That is precisely the situation here. The trial court had no discretion to impose other than a consecutive sentence for Boyd's violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), and his other prison terms were ordered to run concurrent to his federal sentence, therefore consecutive sentence findings were not necessary. "The consecutive-sentencing provisions of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are inapposite when the trial court is required to impose consecutive sentences by operation of law." State v. Harper, 2017-Ohio-8963, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.). -4-  Madison CA2025-11-031 III. Conclusion {¶ 12} We find the trial court did not err in imposing Boyd's Failure to Comply sentence consecutive to his other prison terms. The sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 13} Judgment affirmed. M. POWELL and SIEBERT, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT ENTRY The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Madison County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24. /s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge /s/ Mike Powell, Judge /s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge -5-