State v. HarrisState v. Harris
{¶ 1} Appellant, Micah Harris, appeals the September 11, 2018 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to 12 months in prison following his violation of previously imposed community control conditions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
{¶ 2} On May 7, 2015, appellant Micah Harris was indicted on one count of trafficking in marijuana in violation of
{¶ 3} On December 11, 2015, Harris appeared before the trial court for a hearing on an alleged violation of the conditions of his intervention in lieu of conviction—the consumption of alcohol. While Harris stipulated to the violation, the trial court agreed to continue appellant‘s intervention under the same conditions. Harris again appeared before the trial court on July 1, 2016, following the state‘s allegation that appellant again consumed alcohol in violation of the terms of his intervention program. The trial court determined Harris had consumed alcohol and terminated appellant‘s intervention. With intervention terminated, the trial court found Harris guilty of trafficking in marijuana, the sole count in the original indictment, based on his previous guilty plea. On August 12, 2016, the trial court sentenced appellant to community control for a period of 2 years and notified him that violation of community control terms could lead to a prison term of 12
{¶ 4} On November 4, 2016, Harris appeared before the trial court for a hearing on a community control violation following a conviction for underage consumption. The trial court did not revoke Harris‘s community control but did order two months of electronic alcohol monitoring to ensure Harris‘s compliance with the no alcohol consumption term of his community control.
{¶ 5} Harris again appeared before the trial court on September 5, 2017, for a hearing on a community control violation based on his consumption of alcohol. Harris stipulated to the violation and requested the trial court proceed to disposition. The trial court again continued Harris‘s community control but imposed additional conditions including the completion of an alcohol abuse treatment program, drug and mental health screenings, and the completion of any recommended treatment arising from those screenings.
{¶ 6} Finally, on September 11, 2018, Harris appeared before the trial court on another violation of the community control provisions. Harris stipulated to the violation in that he had moved to Southern Ohio and absconded from the probation department‘s supervision of his community control conditions. The trial court accepted the stipulated
The trial court did not comply with
R.C. 2929.11 and2929.12 in sentencing Appellant to twelve months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections instead of ordering community control sanctions.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} Harris argues his sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to “follow the directives of either
{¶ 8} Appellant bears the burden of identifying clear and convincing evidence the sentence imposed was contrary to law. State v. Williams, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1083, 2014-Ohio-3624, at ¶ 7-11, 16,
{¶ 9} Here, Harris argues that “[a]lthough the judgment entry in this case references
{¶ 10} Moreover, the sentencing entry clearly states that the trial court considered
after consideration of any additional relevant factors and the recidivism and seriousness factors under
R.C. 2929.12 , the Court finds that a prison term is consistent, based upon the overriding purposes and principles of sentencing set forth inR.C. 2929.11 . Further, the Court finds the Defendant is no longer amenable to any available community control sanction and is unsuccessfully terminated from community control.
The trial court is “not obligated to give a detailed explanation of how it algebraically applied each seriousness and recidivism factor to the offender. Indeed, no specific recitation is required.” Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524, 2011-Ohio-5032, 960 N.E.2d 1042, at ¶ 11, citing State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000). The trial court‘s statement that it considered
{¶ 11} Despite this, Harris claims that “the trial court did not consider mitigating factors or Appellant‘s need for mental health counseling and treatment[.]” That is, Harris claims that he acknowledged his crime was compelled by drug addiction, that he
{¶ 12} The trial court, however, has the sole discretion to determine the weight afforded to any particular statutory factor when imposing a felony sentence. State v. Stubbs, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-810, 2014-Ohio-3696, ¶ 16. Further, the trial court was not required to provide any recitation as to how it weighed these factors. Id. Harris‘s failure to receive the desired result does not mean the factors were not considered and weighed by the trial court.
{¶ 13} The trial court‘s statement that it considered
{¶ 14} We find appellant‘s assignment of error not well-taken. The trial court properly considered the purposes and principals of sentencing under
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Arlene Singer, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, P.J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
JUDGE