The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on November 5, 2001. At that time, the trial court heard comments from the members of the victims' families and reviewed a presentence investigation report. In a November 14, 2001 Judgment Entry, the trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen months for each of the four counts, to be served consecutively. We note the trial court made all requisite findings for the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E).

It is from this judgment entry appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning the following error:

THE SENTENCING COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING FOUR CONSECUTIVE FIFTEEN MONTHS SENTENCES UPON THE DEFENDANT AS HE HAD NEVER BEFORE BEEN TO PRISON.

We dismiss this case for the reasons set forth in our Opinion in Statev. Andrukat (Apr. 15, 2002), Stark App. No. 2001CA00324, unreported. Because appellant failed to file a motion for leave to appeal the imposition of consecutive sentences, we are without jurisdiction to review this case.

By: HOFFMAN, P.J. BOGGINS, J. concur EDWARDS, J. concurs separately

I concur with the disposition of this case by the majority. I disagree with the analysis. The majority states, "[b]ecause appellant failed to file a motion for leave to appeal the imposition of consecutive sentences, we are without jurisdiction to review this case." I find that statement to be misleading. There are times when an appeal of a consecutive sentence would not require leave to appeal. But the case sub judice is not one of them because the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant to a lengthy prison term when appellant had not been to prison before.