The Supreme Court of Ohio today affirmed the decision to impose consecutive sentences leading to a 60-year prison term for a man who went on a two-month robbery and kidnapping spree in Hamilton County, forcing at gunpoint many of his victims to drive around and withdraw money from ATMs.

A divided Supreme Court found the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court followed the state law on issuing consecutive sentences when it sentenced Tommy Glover. Glover was convicted of robbing five individuals, including one man twice, and kidnapping four of them. The First District Court of Appeals had reduced Glover’s sentence to 25 years.

The trial court’s 60-year “aggregate sentence” was calculated by imposing six consecutive seven-year sentences for aggravated robbery for a total of 42 years. Those are to be served consecutive to and after six three-year gun specifications totaling 18 years.

In the Court’s lead opinion, Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote that the First District did not properly apply the law for reviewing consecutive sentences issued by a trial court and that the record does not justify modifying Glover’s sentence.

“The statute does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its view of an appropriate sentence for that of a trial court,” he wrote.

The Court reversed the First District’s opinion and reinstated Glover’s 60-year sentence.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice Joseph T. Deters joined Justice DeWine’s opinion.

In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Patrick F. Fischer disagreed with the lead opinion’s conclusion that a trial court does not have to consider the total amount of time the offender must serve when imposing consecutive sentences. While not explicitly stated in the state law, the structure of the sentencing statutes requires a trial judge to consider the total sentence to find “consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender.”

Despite disagreeing with the lead opinion’s consecutive-sentence analysis, Justice Fischer agreed that the lead opinion reached the right result, because the record did not “clearly and convincingly ” fail to support the sentencing court’s findings that consecutive sentences are appropriate. 

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Melody Stewart wrote the Court failed to provide clarity on how to apply R.C. 2929.14, the consecutive sentencing law. She wrote the trial court must consider the aggregate sentence, and a majority of the Court agreed, despite the outcome in this case. The appeals court is authorized to evaluate the trial court’s sentence pursuant to the statute to determine if the sentence is appropriate, she wrote

She stated the First District properly concluded that Glover’s 60-year sentence with no opportunity for parole is far harsher than sentences for many violent offenders, and the 25-year sentence was in line with what prosecutors requested.

Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Stewart’s opinion.

Robber Forces Victims To Withdraw Money
In May and June of 2020, Glover committed multiple crimes in the Cincinnati area communities of St. Bernard and Norwood. Glover spotted a man around 1 a.m. talking a walk. He and his accomplice held the man at gunpoint and rifled through his wallet. Glover forced the man into his nearby car and had him drive to a nearby bank ATM and forced the victim to withdraw $1,300 in three increments. He then made the man drive to another bank and attempt to make further withdrawals, but no more money could be withdrawn.

The two robbers forced the man to drive around, threatening to shoot him if he refused. Glover and his accomplice eventually got out of the car on Cincinnati’s west side. A few weeks later, Glover spotted the same man. He again forced the man at gunpoint to drive to ATMs until he withdrew his $1,300 limit.

Glover and his accomplice similarly accosted a home health care aide, a man, and two Xavier University students. He threatened to shoot them if they did not hand over or withdraw money.

Police officers were able to capture Glover, and he was charged with six counts of aggravated robbery and five counts of kidnapping.

Judge Conducts Sentencing Hearing
Prior to his trial, the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office offered Glover a 15-year sentence as a plea deal, which he declined. He was convicted of the charges, and at his sentencing hearing, an assistant prosecutor described the plea offer as a “gift” to spare the victims from having to appear in court and relive what happened to them. The prosecutor told the trial judge that the office no longer believed 15 years was appropriate and noted that the victims were in favor of a sentence anywhere from 20 years to the maximum, which the court calculated to be 139 years.

The victims testified to the emotional trauma suffered from Glover’s attack. Two veteran police officers described Glover’s conduct as among the worst they had seen in their communities. One officer testified he was grateful that Glover did not actually shoot any of the victims.

When the trial judge offered Glover a chance to speak, he responded, “Reasonable doubt that I did these crimes” and said nothing else. The trial court stated it considered the victim impact statements and a pre-sentence investigation report, which indicated that Glover had only one juvenile adjudication, for which he received one year of probation, and one minor adult criminal conviction.

Trial Court Issued Consecutive Sentences
Under Ohio criminal sentencing laws, a defendant convicted of multiple crimes is presumed to serve all sentences concurrently. To impose consecutive sentences, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires the trial court to complete a three-step analysis. First, the trial judge must find consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender.” Next, it must conclude that “consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public.” Finally, it must find any of three other factors, including that the offender committed the crimes while under postrelease control, that multiple offenses were committed as part of a course of criminal conduct that caused harm so great that a single prison term would inadequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct, or that the offender’s criminal history warrants consecutive sentences to protect the public from future crime by the offender.

Glover’s aggravated robbery and kidnapping convictions carried sentences ranging from three to 11 years in prison. The trial judge selected a mid-range, seven years, and imposed six seven-year terms for the robberies that would run consecutively. The court determined that the five kidnapping sentences would run concurrently to the robbery sentences, and all were imposed to run after the 18 years for the firearm specifications.

Glover appealed to the First District, which ruled that the trial court took the proper steps to impose consecutive sentences. However, the appeals court noted that Glover’s victims suffered no physical harm and that the record was unclear as to the severity of Glover’s juvenile offense.

The appellate court found that Glover’s total sentence was not proportionate to his crimes, and noted that a person convicted of murder can receive a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 15 years. Glover has no opportunity to seek parole, the First District noted, and reduced his sentence to 25 years, suggesting it was closer to the sentence that the prosecutors had expected the trial court to impose.

The prosecutor appealed the First District’s decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court Analyzed Sentencing Law
The prosecutor maintained that the appeals court should not focus on the total sentence the offender receives when reviewing whether the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences. The prosecutor also argued that the First District is not authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

Justice DeWine wrote that under Ohio law the trial court has the primary responsibility for sentencing and a court of appeals may not simply substitute its view for a trial court’s sentencing determination.  State law allows a court of appeals to modify a trial court’s judgment only in limited situations where the court of appeals determines that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s sentencing findings. In conducting its review, he explained, state law does not direct an appeals court to consider Glover’s aggregate sentence. Rather the review is limited to the court’s sentencing finding. Justice DeWine observed that the court of appeals did not follow the statutory process, but rather premised its decision on its disagreement with the total sentence.

The opinion found that the appeals court improperly referred to and misconstrued the prosecutor’s sentencing suggestions. In addition, the court of appeals improperly concluded that Glover’s sentence was too harsh on the basis that he had not physically harmed the victims.

“There is no requirement in law, however, that consecutive sentences are only appropriate when an offender inflicts physical harm on his victims,” the opinion stated. “As the sentencing court explained, Glover inflicted lasting harm on his victims – harm that may well last longer and have more profound effects than a temporary physical injury.”

Aggregate Term Should Be Considered in Consecutive Sentence Analysis, Concurrence Noted
Justice Fischer argued that the aggregate sentence must be considered in the consecutive sentences analysis “in order for courts to give effect to the entirety of R.C. 2929.14(C).”  The court must consider the aggregate sentence in evaluating whether the consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, Justice Fischer maintained.  Without considering the aggregate prison term, Justice Fischer questioned, “how a court can determine whether consecutive sentences are not disproportionate (i.e., are proportionate) to the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender poses to the public if the court does not know what the aggregate of all the terms would be.” 

Despite analyzing the statutory scheme differently from the lead opinion, Justice Fischer agreed with the lead opinion that “the record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.”

Sentence Length Inappropriate, Dissent Maintained
In her dissent, Justice Stewart made clear that a majority of four justices in today’s decision concluded that trial and appeals courts must consider the aggregate sentence when determining if consecutive sentences should be imposed. She also stated that the statute requires an appeals court to analyze a trial court’s sentencing finding through a de novo review, and the appeals court does not have to give special weight or deference to the trial court’s findings on the record.

The First District correctly considered the aggregate sentence, as required by the statute, and concluded a 60-year sentence with no parole was disproportionate to his acts, especially when compared to sentences handed down to more violent offenders, the dissent stated.

“While not ignoring the fear and emotional trauma that Glover caused, I agree with the First District that these crimes were not on par with crimes that result in serious physical harm or death and thus do not deserve a similar sentence to those crimes,” Justice Stewart wrote.

 2023-0654. State v. Glover, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5195.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.