COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 82356
 
STATE OF OHIO,                :
                              :
          Plaintiff-Appellee :          JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :               and
    vs.                       :             OPINION
                              :
ADAM NELSON,                  :
                              :
          Defendant-Appellant :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    JULY 24, 2003
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Criminal appeal from
                              :    Common Pleas Court
                              :    Case No. CR-422674
 
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For plaintiff-appellee:       William D. Mason, Esq.
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              BY: Mark Schneider, Esq.
                              Assistant County Prosecutor
                              The Justice Center ­ 8th Floor
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For defendant-appellant:      Harvey B. Bruner, Esq.
                              Bret Jordan, Esq.
                              BRUNER & JORDAN
                              1600 Illuminating Building
                              55 Public Square
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, P.J.:
 
     The sole issue in this appeal is whether the court erred by
 
imposing more than the minimum term of incarceration upon defendant
 
Adam Nelson, a first-time felony offender. Nelson pleaded guilty
 
to felonious assault, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping. The
 
court imposed five year sentences on each count, to be served
 
concurrently. Nelson complains that the court failed to articulate
 
sufficient reasons as to why it did not impose the minimum
 
sentence.
 
     The sentencing law carries a presumption that offenders who
 
have not previously served a prison term receive the minimum term.
 
See R.C. 2929.14(B). That presumption may be overcome, however, if
 
the court finds on the record that "the shortest prison term will
 
demean the seriousness of the offender    's conduct or will not
 
adequately protect the public from future crime by the offender or
 
others." Id. InState v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 328,
 
the supreme court held that a court which sentences an offender to
 
more than the minimum must only state its findings for giving more
 
than the minimum, but not its reasons.
 
     After considering at length the circumstances surrounding
 
Nelson's offenses, the court found on the record that "a prison
 
sentence is appropriate. To do otherwise would demean the
 
seriousness of defendant's conduct." This statement fully complied
 
with the findings required by R.C. 2929,14(B) for imposing more
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                             -3-
 
than the minimum sentence. The court had no obligation to state
 
its reasons for making that finding. The assigned error is
 
overruled.
 
    Judgment affirmed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -4-
 
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs
 
herein taxed.
 
     The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
 
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court
 
directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into
 
execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any
 
bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial
 
court for execution of sentence.
 
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
 
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 
 
 
                                         MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN
                                           PRESIDING JUDGE
ANNE L. KILBANE, J., and
 
ANN DYKE, J., CONCUR.
 
 
 
 
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See
App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will
be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court
pursuant to App.R.22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with
supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days
of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for
review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the
clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section
2(A)(1).
 
.