State v. Younker ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Younker, 2012-Ohio-2532.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2011 CA 33
v. : T.C. NO. 10CR366
JENIFER L. YOUNKER : (Criminal appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 8th day of June , 2012.
..........
ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0074332, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 61 Greene
Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
DANIEL E. BRINKMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0025365, Suite 2000 Liberty Tower, 120 West Second
Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
JENIFER L. YOUNKER, #W081-191, Dayton Correctional Center, P. O. Box 17399, Dayton,
Ohio 45417
Defendant-Appellant
..........
2
PER CURIAM:
{¶ 1} Jenifer Younker was originally charged by indictment with five separate counts –
count one: Conspiracy to Commit Trafficking in Cocaine, a second degree felony, in violation of
R.C. 2923.01(A)(2) and R.C. 2925.03(A)(1); count two: Trafficking in Cocaine, a first degree
felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1); counts three and four: Trafficking in Cocaine, second
degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1); and count five: Complicity to Trafficking in
Cocaine, a third degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) and R.C. 2925.03(A)(1).
{¶ 2} The parties entered into a plea agreement in which Younker pled guilty to count
one, as charged, and to counts three and five, which were amended to Trafficking in Cocaine, a
fourth degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1). The State agreed to dismiss counts two
and four. The court sentenced Younker to four years in prison on count one, to run concurrently
with two eighteen-month sentences for counts three and five.
{¶ 3} Appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal on June 8, 2011. On January 9, 2012,
counsel filed an Anders brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18
L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he could find no meritorious issues for appellate review. By
magistrate’s order on January 18, 2012, we notified Younker that her counsel had filed an Anders
brief and of the significance of that brief. The order advised Younker of her right to file a pro se
brief within sixty days. Younker did not file a pro se brief.
{¶ 4} Younker’s counsel identified two possible issues for appeal. First, he raises that
“the trial court failed to comply with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence,
which is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Second, he raises that “the trial court abused
its discretion in sentencing the defendant to four years in prison.”
3
{¶ 5} Younker’s sentence is neither contrary to law nor an abuse of discretion. “The
overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the
offender and others and to punish the offender.” R.C. 2929.11(A). The Supreme Court of Ohio
enumerated a two-step process for appellate review of criminal sentencing. State v. Kalish, 120
Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124. First, the appellate court considers whether the
trial court complied with all applicable rules and statutes. Id. at ¶ 4. Second, when the sentence is
not contrary to law, it will be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Id. A sentence is
not an abuse of discretion unless a sentence is grossly unsound, unreasonable, illegal or
unsupported by the evidence. State v. Saunders, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2009 CA 82,
2011-Ohio-391, ¶ 12.
{¶ 6} The trial court expressly stated that it had balanced the seriousness and
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. Trial courts do not need to make further findings to
demonstrate that they have considered the factors. State v. Watkins, 186 Ohio App.3d 619,
2010-Ohio-740, 929 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 39 (2d Dist.). The trial court emphasized the seriousness of
Younker’s drug dealing activities, and that Younker’s co-defendant received a harsher sentence
of sixteen years. Furthermore, the transcript of the sentencing hearing demonstrates that the trial
court considered Younker’s status as a mother, as well as her efforts to educate herself and
maintain employment, when imposing a lighter sentence. This court has recognized that a trial
court enjoys “full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the
court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive
or more than minimum sentences.” Saunders at ¶ 10. After considering the applicable rules and
statutes, the court imposed a four year sentence, well within the statutory range of two to eight
4
years. Furthermore, count one, Conspiracy to Commit Trafficking in Cocaine, a second degree
felony, carried a presumption of imprisonment. Younker’s sentence was not contrary to law, and
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing her sentence.
{¶ 7} Pursuant to our responsibilities according to Anders, we have conducted an
independent review of the entire record and have found no error with arguable merit. We agree
with the assessment of the appointed counsel that there is no meritorious issue to present on an
appeal.
{¶ 8} The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
..........
GRADY, P.J., FAIN, J., and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Elizabeth A. Ellis
Daniel E. Brinkman
Jenifer L. Younker
Hon. Stephen A. Wolaver