2021 Ohio 2250
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Gina Brandt was indicted for burglary, grand theft of a firearm (with firearm specification), and petty theft; she later pleaded guilty to trespass in a habitation (felony 4), petty theft (misdemeanor 1), and grand theft of a firearm (felony 3).
- In June 2017 she received three years of community control with conditions including substance-abuse and mental-health treatment.
- The state filed multiple petitions to revoke community control after failures to report to probation and a positive cocaine UA; Brandt stipulated to violations in 2018 and 2019 and her supervision was continued with added treatment and no-contact/ no-alcohol conditions.
- A third revocation petition was filed in June 2020 for failure to report; Brandt stipulated to the violation and, on August 19, 2020, the trial court sentenced her to 30 months in prison.
- On appeal Brandt argued the sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to properly consider and weigh R.C. 2929.11 purposes and R.C. 2929.12 mitigating factors (remorse, abuse history, mental-health issues, willingness to enter inpatient treatment).
- The Sixth District affirmed, holding the record shows the court considered the statutory factors, Brandt bore the burden to show otherwise, and under State v. Jones appellate courts may not reweigh those sentencing factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-month prison sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 | Trial court considered victim/mother statements, letters, counsel statements, defendant’s record and expressly reviewed seriousness/recidivism; sentence within statutory range and appropriate because Brandt is not amenable to community control | Court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (remorse, abuse/mental-health history, treatment efforts) and thus the sentence does not reflect R.C. 2929.11 purposes | Affirmed: record shows the court considered required statutes; appellant failed to show contrary-to-law error; appellate court will not reweigh factors under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) per controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729 (Ohio 2020) (appellate courts may not independently reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment about how R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors were applied when reviewing a felony sentence)