State v. Lamson , 2022 Ohio 505 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Lamson, 2022-Ohio-505.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 8-21-21
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN C. LAMSON, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 8-21-22
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN C. LAMSON, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeals from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. CR 20 03 0073 AND CR 20 10 0246
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 22, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Samantha L. Berkhofer for Appellant
Stacia L. Rapp for Appellee
Case Nos. 8-21-21 and 8-21-22
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant John C. Lamson (“Lamson”) appeals the
judgments of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court
erred in sentencing him. For the reasons set forth below, the judgments of the trial
court are affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On June 9, 2020, Lamson was indicted on three counts of improperly
handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16 and two counts of
possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). Doc. A-6.1
These charges became the basis of Case No. 20-03-0073. Doc. A-6. On October
13, 2020, Lamson was indicted on one count of improperly handling firearms in a
motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16 with a specification for forfeiture of a
weapon. Doc. B-2. These charges became the basis of Case No. 20-10-0246. Doc.
B-2.
{¶3} At a change of plea hearing on June 4, 2021, Lamson pled guilty to one
count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, a felony of the fourth
degree, in Case No. 20-03-0073. Doc. A-88. The remaining charges in the June 9,
2020 indictment were dismissed. Doc. A-88. Lamson then pled guilty to one count
of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree,
1
This appeal has its basis in two criminal cases from the trial court. The docket number of the filings in Case
No. 20-03-0073 will be preceded by the letter “A.” The docket number of the filings in Case No. 20-10-0246
will be preceded by the letter “B.”
-2-
Case Nos. 8-21-21 and 8-21-22
and the specification for forfeiture of a weapon in Case No. 20-10-0246. Doc. B-
56.
{¶4} After accepting Lamson’s pleas, the trial court began to “prepar[e] for
the sentencing hearing.” Plea Tr. 14-15. See Doc. A-88, B-56. The following
exchange then occurred:
The Court: * * * We’re not going to have a sentencing hearing
today. The Court notes that I do have a presentence investigation
report [(“PSI”)] from * * * December of 2020. The Court would
be comfortable with just relying on that PSI for the purposes of
sentence and moving forward. Is that acceptable to the State?
[State]: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Is that acceptable to the defense * * *?
[Defense]: It is, Your Honor. I was assuming that the court would
want some form of update to that report, but I would be
comfortable using that report.
The Court: All right. We will move forward then with using that
report. * * * [W]hat will happen is I will review that report, Mr.
Lamson, and your counsel has a copy of it as does the State, and
we will use that and we will consider that as part of the basis for
deciding what the appropriate sentence is in this case.
If we didn’t have one that is so recent, we would have you do a
presentence investigation interview, another one, but I really
don’t think it’s going to update much of anything. [The Defense]
* * * has kept me up-to-date on what your situation is * * * I think
everything since December, * * * basically you’ve been in the
hospital quite a bit, I understand—
[Lamson]: Yeah.
-3-
Case Nos. 8-21-21 and 8-21-22
The Court: —dealing with health issues that wouldn’t be in the
PSI anyway, so I think we’re comfortable with having the
information that we need. Do you have any questions about that?
[Lamson]: I do not.
Plea Tr. 15-16. On July 9, 2021, the trial court held a sentencing hearing for both
of Lamson’s cases. Sentencing Tr. 3. On July 12, 2021, the trial court issued its
judgment entries of sentencing. Doc. A-91, B-59.
Assignment of Error
{¶5} Lamson filed his notices of appeal on July 13, 2021. Doc. A-102, B-
71. On appeal, he raises the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred in sentencing defendant/appellant John
Lamson.
He argues that the trial court erred by failing to order a new PSI before sentencing
him and that he should, therefore, be resentenced.
Legal Standard
{¶6} Under R.C. 2951.03(A)(1), a trial court is required to consider a written
PSI before an offender is sentenced to a term of community control “[u]nless the
defendant and the prosecutor who is handling the case against the defendant agree
to waive the presentence investigation report * * *.” R.C. 2951.03(A)(1). See State
v. Amos, 140 Ohio St.3d 238, 2014-Ohio-3160, 17 N.E.3d 528, ¶ 15, citing R.C.
2951.03(A)(1) and Crim.R. 32.2.
-4-
Case Nos. 8-21-21 and 8-21-22
{¶7} However, as a general matter, “[t]he decision to order a presentence
investigation generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court if the court
contemplates a prison term and not community control in sentencing upon a
criminal offense.” State v. McCauley, 5th Dist. Licking No. 19-CA-84, 2020-Ohio-
2813, ¶ 43, citing State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295, 297, 525 N.E.2d 1361, 1363
(1988). See R.C. 2947.06(A)(1) (A trial court “may direct the department of
probation * * * to make any * * * presentence investigation reports that the court
requires concerning the defendant.”).
An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment. State
v. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.).
Rather, an abuse of discretion is present where the trial court’s
decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. State v.
Howton, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-16-35, 2017-Ohio-4349, ¶ 23.
State v. Cobb, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-20-43, 2021-Ohio-3877, ¶ 53.
Legal Analysis
{¶8} On appeal, Lamson argues that he “suffered severe medical problems *
* *” in between the completion of the PSI on December 10, 2020 and his sentencing
hearing on July 9, 2021. Appellant’s Brief, 7. See Sentencing Tr. 3, 9. Lamson
argues that his medical situation was not documented in the PSI that was before the
trial court at his sentencing hearing and that this information “should [have] be[en]
considered in sentencing.” Appellant’s Brief, 7.
{¶9} As an initial matter, the State notes, in its brief, that a community
control sanction was not imposed in this case. Appellee’s Brief, 4. See Doc. A-91,
-5-
Case Nos. 8-21-21 and 8-21-22
B-59. Thus, in this case, R.C. 2951.03(A)(1) did not require the trial court to
consider a written PSI. R.C. 2951.03(A)(1). McCauley, supra, at ¶ 44-46.
Additionally, at the change of plea hearing, both the State and the Defense agreed
that an updated PSI was unnecessary. Plea Tr. 15-16. See State v. Howard, 9th
Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010857, 2016-Ohio-7077, ¶ 8 (holding defendant could not
“take issue with the trial court’s having sentenced him in the absence of a PSI”
because he “waived a PSI * * * and has not challenged his waiver on appeal * *
*.”).
{¶10} Further, the trial court did expressly reference the December 10, 2020
PSI at the sentencing hearing. Sentencing Tr. 9. While Lamson’s medical history
after December 10, 2020 was not included in this PSI, the trial court allowed
Lamson and defense counsel time to set forth in open court the health issues Lamson
had experienced after the PSI considered at sentencing had been written. Id. at 5-8.
Thus, contrary to Lamson’s argument on appeal, the trial court did consider
Lamson’s medical issues before imposing a sentence in this case.
{¶11} We also note that Lamson has not cited to any legal authority that
would suggest that the trial court erred in determining not to have the December 10,
2020 PSI updated after the parties agreed that such action was unnecessary. Further,
having reviewed the record, we find no indication that the trial court abused its
discretion in this matter. State v. Hooks, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1105, 2020-Ohio-
1652, ¶ 18. For these reasons, Lamson’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
-6-
Case Nos. 8-21-21 and 8-21-22
Conclusion
{¶12} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgments of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas
are affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and SHAW, J., concur.
/hls
-7-