State v. SmithState v. Smith
L. Scott Petroff, Athens, Ohio, for appellant.
Jason Holdren, Gallia County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeremy Fisher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Gallipolis, Ohio, for appellee.
Hess, J.
{1} In consolidated appeals, Stavonte D. Smith appeals judgments of conviction for aggravated possession of drugs and possession of a fentanyl-related compound entered by the Gallia County Court of Common Pleas in two criminal cases. In his sole assignment of error, Smith contends that the trial court erred when it imposed the maximum sentence for each offense. He asserts that his sentences are contrary to law because the trial court ignored sentencing factors in
{2} On September 10, 2020, Smith was indicted in Case No. 20 CR 202 on one count each of aggravated possession of drugs, aggravated trafficking in drugs, possession of a fentanyl-related compоund, trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound, and tampering with evidence. He pleaded not guilty and was released on bond. He failed to appear at a February 1, 2021 plea change hearing conducted via Zoom, and the court ordered that a warrant be issued for failure to appear. On February 9, 2021, defense counsel filed a motion to recall the warrant аsserting that the defendant contacted counsel on the hearing date “and apparently there was a miscommunication regarding Zoom.” Defense counsel asked the court to schedule the matter for a plea change hearing. The trial court granted the motion to recall and scheduled a plea change hearing for February 18, 2021, to be conducted via Zоom. However, Smith again failed to appear, and the court again ordered that a warrant be issued for failure to appear.
{3} Smith was arrested on November 30, 2021. Subsequently, he was indicted in Case No. 22 CR 25 on five counts alleged to have occurred on or about the day of his arrest-possession of a fentanyl-related compound, trafficking in a fentanyl-related comрound, aggravated possession of drugs, aggravated trafficking in drugs, and tampering with evidence. Smith initially pleaded not guilty.
{4} However, Smith later entered a guilty plea in Case No. 20 CR 202 to aggravated possession of drugs, a second-degree felony, and a guilty plea in Case No. 22 CR 25 to possession of a fentanyl-related compound, a second-degree felony. In exchange, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining counts, recommend concurrent sentences, and “not seek to enhance [post-release control] for the new conviction.”
{5} At the sentencing hearing, the state asked the court to impose the maximum рrison sentence for each offense, defense counsel asked the court to impose the minimum prison sentence for each offense, and the parties asked the court to run the sentences concurrent. See
{6} The trial court told the parties it had considered everything presented at the hearing, “considered the presentence investigation report,” “considered the underlying agreement,” “considered the record and all relevant information,” and “considered” and was “guided by the purposes and principles of sentencing under 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors relevant to the offense and the offender in 2929.12(B) through (F).” The court found that Smith was on post-relеase control when he committed both offenses, was out on bond in Case No. 20 CR 202 when he committed the offense
{7} In the sentencing entry in Case No. 20 CR 202, the trial court made the following statements and findings, which are nearly identical to those in the sentencing entry in Case No. 22 CR 25. The court stated that it had “considered the record, Defense counsel‘s oral statements, Defendant‘s oral statements, Defendant‘s record, Defendant‘s mother‘s statement, the certificates of comрletion from Alvis House showing Defendant‘s AOD participation, the presentence investigation report, and other relevant information.” The court stated that it “also considered and is guided by the principles and purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.11.” In addition, the court “considered and is guided by the seriousness and recidivism factors under Ohio Revised Code Sectiоn 2929.12(B)-(F), and the need for deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution.” The court stated that it found that none of the factors in
{8} In both cases, the trial court sentenced Smith to a mandatory minimum prison term of 8 years and a maximum term of 12 years, and the court ordered that the sentencеs be served concurrently. The court dismissed the remaining counts in both cases on the state‘s motion. In Gallia App. No. 22CA3, Smith filed a notice of appeal with respect to Case No. 22 CR 25, and in Gallia App. No. 22CA4, Smith filed a notice of appeal with respect to Case No. 20 CR 202. We sua sponte consolidated the appeals.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{9} Smith presents one assignment of error: “The trial court erred to the prejudice of Mr. Smith by improperly imposing the maximum prison sentence.”1
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
{10} In his sole assignment of error, Smith contends the trial court erred when it imposed the maximum sentence for each offense. Smith maintains his sentences are contrary to law because the trial court “ignored certain factors” and considered “extraneous factors outside of those lаid out in
{11} We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in
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 aрpellate 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:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichеver, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{12} “A defendant bears the burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a sentence is either contrary to law or that the record does not support the specified findings.” State v. Helterbridle, 4th Dist. Adams Nos. 21CA1149, 21CA1150,
{¶13}
(A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.
(B) A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the three overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section, commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.
* * *
{¶14}
Unless otherwise required by section 2929.13 or 2929.14 of the Revised Code, a court that imposes a sentenсe under this chapter upon an offender for a felony has discretion to determine the most effective way to comply
with the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.11 of the Revised Code. In exercising that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender‘s recidivism, and the factors set forth in division (F) of this section pertaining to the offender‘s service in the armed forces of the United States and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.
{15}
(1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing * * * [or] was under post-release control pursuant to section 2967.28 or any other provision of the Revised Code for an earlier оffense * * *
(2) The offender * * * has a history of criminal convictions.
* * *
(4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that is related to the offense, and the offender refuses to acknowledge that the offender has demonstrated that pattern, or the offender refuses treatment for the drug or alcohol abuse.
{16} “Although a court imposing a felony sentenсe must consider the purposes of felony sentencing under
{17} However, “[b]ecause both
{18} Smith has failed in his burden to show that his sentences are сontrary to law. The record reflects that the trial court considered
{19} In addition, the suggestion that the sentences are contrary to law because the trial court ignored Smith‘s mental health issues, the fact that he was on medication, and his prior drug treatment is not well-taken. The sentencing entries state that the сourt “considered the record,” which includes Smith‘s statements at the plea change hearing about his mental health issues and medication. The entries also state that the court considered defense counsel‘s oral statements at sentencing, which included statements about Smith‘s drug treatment, and considered Smith‘s certificates of completion from Alvis House. Thus, the record reflects that the court did consider Smith‘s mental health issues, medication, and prior drug treatment. The fact that it did not give greater weight to those circumstances does not make the sentences contrary to law. And to the extent Smith may be suggesting his prior treatment precluded the trial court from finding that he refused
{20} Smith has also not shown that the trial court improperly considered any extraneous factors. Smith has not identified any factor the trial court considered which falls outside the bounds of
{21} For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err when it imposed maximum sentences. Accordingly, we overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court‘s judgments.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED and that appellant shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Gallia County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Abele, J. & Wilkin, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY: ____________________
Michael D. Hess, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.