State v. PaxonState v. Paxon
Criminal Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 00485.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ashleigh Musick, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, Ohio 44481-1092 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Michael A. Partlow, 112 South Water Street, Suite C, Kent, Ohio 44240 (For Defendant-Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, KC Anne Elizabeth Paxon, appeals her conviction after pleading guilty to aggravated possession of drugs. We affirm.
{¶2} Paxon raises one assignment of error:
{¶3} “The trial court erred by sentencing appellant to incarceration rather than imposing a community control sanction.”
{¶5} Our standard of review is delineated in
{¶6} “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court‘s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
{¶7} “(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under [certain sections] of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
{¶8} “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
{¶9} Paxon pleaded guilty to aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of
{¶10} The applicable version of
{¶11} “Except as provided in division (B)(1)(b) of this section, if an offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying assault offense, the court shall sentence the offender to a community control sanction of at least on year‘s duration if all of the following apply * * *.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶12} The exception in subsection (B)(1)(b) of
{¶13} “The court has discretion to impose a prison term upon an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying assault offense if any of the following apply:
{¶14} “* * *
{¶15} “(iii) The offender violated a term of the conditions of bond as set by the court.
{¶16} “* * *
{¶17} “(xi) The offender committed the offense while under a community control sanction, while on probation, or while released from custody on a bond or personal recognizance.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶18} Contrary to Paxon‘s argument, the statute does not require a court to explicitly make a finding before it has discretion to impose prison. Instead, a plain reading of the applicable version of
{¶19} Ohio courts have consistently held that a sentencing court is only required to make findings when the applicable statutes require findings. For example, the failure to make the required findings to impose consecutive sentences in
{¶20} As evidenced in the transcript of proceedings and pointed out by the state, Paxon was on probation at the time of her guilty plea, and she violated the conditions of her bond during the proceedings, which resulted in the court revoking her bond. Thus, the trial court had discretion to impose prison because two of the factors in
{¶21} Moreover, the cases Paxon relies on address prior versions of the statute that explicitly required findings. Former
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.
concur.