[Cite as State v. Tate,

.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 102776 and 102777

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

CHARLES TATE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Keough, P.J., and McCormack, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 17, 2015 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Rick L. Ferrara 2077 East 4th Street Second Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44114

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Glen Ramdhan Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} Charles Tate appeals his conviction in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos.

CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A, claiming that the trial court erred by imposing

consecutive sentences without making the required findings pursuant to R.C.

2929.14(C)(4). In both cases, at a hearing also resolving three other cases involving Tate

and for which no appeals were filed, Tate pleaded guilty to two counts of domestic

violence, felonies of the fourth degree. The trial court imposed a 16-month term of

imprisonment on one count and a 12-month term on the other, to be served concurrently.

In the final sentencing entry, the trial court noted that the prison term in Cuyahoga C.P.

No. CR-14-586700-A, not the subject of the current appeal, would be served consecutive

to the current two cases.

{¶2} We summarily overrule Tate’s sole assigned error challenging the imposition

of consecutive sentences in CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A. No consecutive

prison sentence was imposed in the current two appealed cases. The trial court ordered

the prison sentence in CR-14-586700-A to be served consecutive to the concurrent

sentences in CR-14-589900-A and CR-14-589901-A. Any challenge to the imposition of

consecutive service lies in CR-14-586700-A. State v. Nordstrom, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 101656,

, ¶ 28. Tate has not appealed that final sentence, and

therefore, we must overrule the assigned error. Tate’s conviction is affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR