State v. Clarke

[Cite as State v. Clarke, 2026-Ohio-4440.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-L-0029 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas SUSAN K. CLARKE, Trial Court No. 2025 CR 001431 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: November 9, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Christina Brueck, 333 Babbitt Road, Suite 301, Euclid, OH 44123 (For Defendant- Appellant). ROBERT J. PATTON, J. {¶1} Appellant, Susan K. Clarke (“Clarke”), appeals her 18-month aggregate sentence imposed upon her as a result of her convictions of possession of heroin, a fifth- degree felony, possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony, illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto the grounds of a specified governmental facility, a third-degree felony, and possession of a fentanyl-related compound, a fifth-degree felony. {¶2} On appeal, Clarke asserts that the trial court erred when it ordered her sentence to be served consecutively to an 18-month sentence previously imposed in a separate and unrelated case. Clarke contends that the trial court failed to make all the required findings in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C). Specifically, Clarke alleges that the trial court did not consider proportionality as required. {¶3} Upon review, we conclude that the trial court made all the findings as required, and Clarke’s sentence is not otherwise contrary to law. As Clarke’s assignment of error is without merit, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Substantive and Procedural Facts {¶4} On November 26, 2025, a Lake County Grand Jury returned a five-count indictment charging Clarke with possession of heroin, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), with a specification of forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417 and 2981.04 (“Count 1”); possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) (“Count 2”); illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto the grounds of a specified governmental facility, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2) with a specification of forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417 and 2981.04 (“Count 3”); possession of cocaine, a fifth degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) (“Count 4”); and possession of a fentanyl-related compound, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) (“Count 5”).1 On December 5, 2025, Clarke waived her right to be present at arraignment, entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charges, and accepted the bond recommendation of $200,000 cash/surety or 10 percent. {¶5} The matter proceeded to a jury trial on February 17, 2026. Prior to trial, the State dismissed Count 4 of the indictment. The State called four witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Clarke guilty on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5. 1. A complaint was initially filed in the Painesville Municipal Court on September 24, 2025, and the case was bound over to the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. PAGE 2 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029  {¶6} On February 27, 2026, the trial court sentenced Clarke to the following prison terms: 11 months on Count 1, 18 months on Count 2, 11 months on Count 3, and 11 months on Count 5. The trial court ordered the terms to be served concurrently to each other, for an aggregate prison term of 18 months. The aggregate sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the prison term imposed in Lake County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2025-CR-000320.2 The trial court also ordered that the heroin, cocaine, fentanyl-related compound, and two smoking pipes be forfeited and disposed of pursuant to R.C. 2981.12, 2981.13, and 3719.11(A). {¶7} Clarke timely appeals from the trial court’s entry on sentence. The Appeal {¶8} On appeal, Clarke raises a single assignment of error for review: “The trial court committed reversible and plain error by imposing a consecutive sentence without making the statutorily required findings as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” {¶9} Generally, in Ohio, multiple sentences of imprisonment are presumed to run concurrently. R.C. 2929.41(A). There are limited exceptions to this rule which are not applicable to the instant case. See, e.g., R.C. 2929.14(C)(1) through (3). When a trial court imposes consecutive sentences, the court must “make particularized findings to justify its use of discretion to impose consecutive sentences.” State v. Jones, 2022-Ohio- 4485, ¶ 12, citing R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). “This also means that a trial court may make the necessary findings and ‘order a prison sentence to be served consecutively to a prison sentence previously imposed on the same offender by another Ohio court.’” Id., quoting State v. Bates, 2008-Ohio-1983, ¶ 1. 2. On November 19, 2025, Clarke was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 18 months in Case No. 25-CR-000320 and received 81 days of jail time credit. PAGE 3 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029  {¶10} We review consecutive sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Polizzi, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2588, ¶ 12. “This review is deferential and does not include consideration of the defendant’s aggregate prison term.” Id. “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), provides the sole method for reviewing consecutive sentences and requires an appellate court to review the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ¶ 25. {¶11} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides in relevant part: The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Accord State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 40-42 (lead opinion); State v. Lamb, 2023- Ohio-2834, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Meeks, 2023-Ohio-988, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.). {¶12} “‘[A] sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.’” Lamb at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Shannon, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-199, ¶ 74, (2d Dist.). {¶13} As this court recognized in State v. Feidler, 2024-Ohio-2040 (11th Dist.): PAGE 4 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029  The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that while “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) permits an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that ‘the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under’ certain specified statutory provisions. But R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not among the statutory provisions listed in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Only R.C. 2929.13(B) and (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) and (C)(4), and 2929.20(I) are specified.” Feidler at ¶ 10, appeal not accepted, 2024-Ohio-4501, quoting State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio- 6729, ¶ 28. While R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing is reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). If a sentencing court concludes that “it 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 also finds any of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) factors are present, the court may impose consecutive sentences upon the offender. State v. Campbell, 2023-Ohio-4597, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.). {¶14} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: 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 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. PAGE 5 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029  (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. {¶15} When imposing consecutive sentences, “‘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. Passalacqua, 2023-Ohio-3525, ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37; accord State v. Elliott, 2023-Ohio-412, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.). “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.’ [Bonnell at ¶ 37]. Otherwise, ‘the imposition of consecutive sentences * * * is contrary to law.’ Id.” Passalacqua at ¶ 27. {¶16} Clarke asserts that the trial court failed to make all the required findings in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C). Specifically, Clarke alleges that the trial court did not consider proportionality. Clarke contends that while the trial court reviewed her past and current conduct, the trial court’s consideration “was focused more so on [Clarke’s] past failures to appear for court, her criminal history in the context of her non-compliance with court ordered sanctions, and lack of remorse.” According to Clarke, such findings “do not support the conclusions that the trial court ‘otherwise demonstrated that it considered the proportionality of consecutive sentences.’” We disagree. PAGE 6 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029  {¶17} At sentencing, the trial court considered a PSI previously prepared, and statements made by the parties, including Clarke. In light of the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court determined the offenses to be more serious and noted that the instant offense was committed when Clarke was awaiting sentencing in another case. The trial court reviewed her criminal history and acknowledged that Clarke had been given several prior opportunities for treatment. The trial court then made the required findings: The Court further finds consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime, to punish the offender. Consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of her conduct and to the danger she poses to the public. And that she committed these offenses while she was awaiting sentencing and her history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. {¶18} These findings were also incorporated into the sentencing entry, wherein the trial court stated: Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and 2929.19(B)(2)(b), the Court finds for the reasons stated on the record that consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the Defendant and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant's conduct and the danger the Defendant poses to the public, and that the Defendant committed one or more of the multiple offenses while awaiting trial or sentencing. {¶19} It is clear from the record that the trial court made all required findings at sentencing and those findings were incorporated into the sentencing entry. As the trial court engaged in the correct analysis, and because there is evidence in the record to support the consecutive findings, the trial court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence is affirmed. See Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, at ¶ 29. PAGE 7 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029  {¶20} Accordingly, Clarke’s sole assignment of error is without merit. Conclusion {¶21} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. MATT LYNCH, P.J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur. PAGE 8 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029  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 Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant. JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, 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 9 OF 9 Case No. 2026-L-0029