COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 83931
 
STATE OF OHIO,               :
                             :
    Plaintiff-Appellee       :         JOURNAL ENTRY
                             :               and
    vs.                      :             OPINION
                             :
REGINALD BUCKHANON,          :
                             :
    Defendant-Appellant      :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                  :    JUNE 24, 2004
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING      :    Criminal appeal from
                             :    Common Pleas Court
                             :    Case No. CR-441725
 
JUDGMENT                     :    AFFIRMED.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION       :
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For plaintiff-appellee:      William D. Mason, Esq.
                             Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                             BY: Mary McGrath, Esq.
                             Assistant County Prosecutor
                             The Justice Center ­ 8th Floor
                             1200 Ontario Street
                             Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For defendant-appellant:     Michael P. Maloney, Esq.
                             24461 Detroit Road
                             Suite 340
                             Westlake, Ohio 44145
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -2-
 
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, A.J.:
 
     Defendant Reginald Buckhanon pleaded guilty to two counts of
 
aggravated vehicular assault and one count of driving while under
 
the influence. The court sentenced Buckhanon to consecutive terms
 
of 15 and 17 months on the aggravated vehicular assault counts,
 
both counts to be served concurrently with a six-month sentence on
 
the DUI count. Buckhanon argues that the court erred by imposing
 
consecutive sentences because it failed to comply with the
 
statutory requirements.
 
     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 (1) the court
 
finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the
 
public from future crime or to punish the offender and (2) 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 (3) if the court also finds (a) 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 or (b) the
 
offender's  history   of  criminal   conduct   demonstrates  that
 
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
 
future crime by the offender. See R.C. 2929.14(E)(4). The court
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
is also required to state orally its reasons for imposing
 
consecutive sentences. See R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c); State v. Comer,
 
99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, at ¶26.
 
     The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to
 
protect the public and punish the offender. The court found that
 
consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to Buckhanon's
 
conduct, and that the harm he caused was so great and unusual that
 
a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of his
 
conduct. The court went on to note that consecutive terms were
 
needed to protect the public. These findings fully complied with
 
the statute.
 
     The court recited at length its reasons for making the above
 
findings. The court noted that there were two victims who suffered
 
very serious injuries as a result of the offense. Both victims
 
required surgery and suffered economic harm and emotional harm.
 
Buckhanon committed the offenses while under the influence, and had
 
a past history of substance abuse. The court noted that Buckhanon
 
had been given probation as sanctions for criminal conduct in prior
 
cases, but that he had not responded and had "demonstrated a
 
pattern of drug and alcohol abuse" which made the probability of
 
recidivism "extremely high." The court offered even more reasons
 
than these, but we need not examine them since those reasons we
 
have cited amply support the findings for consecutive sentences.
 
     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
                                         ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., and
 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, 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).
 
.