State v. Bates , 2022 Ohio 4688 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Bates, 2022-Ohio-4688.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HARDIN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 6-22-10
v.
CLINTON WADE BATES, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hardin County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CRI 2020205
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 27, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Emily P. Beckley for Appellant
McKenzie J. Klingler for Appellee
Case No. 6-22-10
ZIMMERMAN, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Clinton Wade Bates (“Bates”), appeals the July 6,
2022 judgment of the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas revoking his
community control and imposing a reserved-prison term. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On January 16, 2020, the Hardin County Grand Jury indicted Bates on
six counts: Count One of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony; Count Two of possessing drug abuse
instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A), a second-degree misdemeanor; and
Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six of use or possession of drug paraphernalia in
violation of R.C. 2925.141(C)(1), (F)(1), fourth-degree misdemeanors. Bates
appeared for arraignment on January 29, 2020 and entered pleas of not guilty.
{¶3} On March 19, 2020, Bates withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered
a plea of guilty, under a negotiated-plea agreement, to Count One. In exchange for
his change of plea, the State agreed to dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and
Six, and agreed to a joint-sentencing recommendation. Thereafter, the trial court
accepted Bates’s guilty plea, found him guilty, and ordered a presentence
investigation.
{¶4} On December 23, 2020, the trial court sentenced Bates (based on the
joint-sentencing recommendation of the parties) to five years of community control
-2-
Case No. 6-22-10
with a reserved 12-month prison term. Bates did not directly appeal his conviction
or sentence.
{¶5} On June 8, 2021, the State filed a motion requesting that the trial court
revoke Bates’s community control. On July 5, 2022, Bates waived his right to a
probable-cause hearing on the State’s motion. As a result, the case proceeded to the
final-revocation hearing during which the trial court concluded that Bates violated
the terms and conditions of his community control after he “admitted that he
violated the terms of his supervision as alleged in the motion.” (Doc. No. 47). That
same day, the trial court revoked Bates’s community control, and imposed the
reserved 12-month prison term.
{¶6} Bates filed his notice of appeal on July 15, 2022, and raises one
assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
Appellant’s Sentence Was Not Supported By Sufficient Evidence.
{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Bates challenges the prison sentence
imposed by the trial court. Specifically, Bates argues that the trial court “did not
properly consider the applicable statues in felony sentencing and that the maximum
sentence was not necessary under the felony sentencing statutes.” (Appellant’s
Brief at 8).
-3-
Case No. 6-22-10
Standard of Review
{¶8} R.C. 2953.08 provides specific grounds for a defendant to appeal a
felony sentence. State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 10.
Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence “only if it
determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the
trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise
contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear
and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts
a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id. at ¶ 22,
quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶9} However, under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), “[a] sentence imposed upon a
defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by
law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case,
and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” “[A] sentence is ‘authorized by law’ and is
not appealable within the meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) only if it comports with
all sentencing provisions.” Underwood at ¶ 20. “[W]hen a sentence fails to include
a mandatory provision, it may be appealed because such a sentence is ‘contrary to
law’ and is also not ‘authorized by law.’” Id. at ¶ 21.
-4-
Case No. 6-22-10
Analysis
{¶10} “It is well-established that the statutes governing felony sentencing no
longer require the trial court to make certain findings before imposing a maximum
sentence.” State v. Maggette, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-06, 2016-Ohio-5554, ¶ 29,
citing State v. Dixon, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA-67, 2016-Ohio-2882, ¶ 14
(“Unlike consecutive sentences, the trial court was not required to make any
particular ‘findings’ to justify maximum prison sentences.”) and State v. Hinton, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102710, 2015-Ohio-4907, ¶ 9 (“The law no longer requires the
trial court to make certain findings before imposing a maximum sentence.”).
Rather, “‘trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory
range.’” State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-15-17, 2015-Ohio-4225, ¶ 10,
quoting State v. Noble, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-06, 2014-Ohio-5485, ¶ 9, citing
State v. Saldana, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-12-09, 2013-Ohio-1122, ¶ 20.
{¶11} In this case, as a fifth-degree felony, aggravated possession of drugs
carries a non-mandatory, definite sanction of six-months to twelve-months
imprisonment. R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), 2929.14(A)(5). “[A] sentence imposed
within the statutory range is ‘presumptively valid’ if the [trial] court considered
applicable sentencing factors.” Maggette at ¶ 31, quoting State v. Collier, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 95572, 2011-Ohio-2791, ¶ 15. Because the trial court sentenced
-5-
Case No. 6-22-10
Bates to a 12 months in prison as to his aggravated-possession-of-drugs conviction,
the trial court’s sentence falls within the statutory range.
{¶12} R.C. 2929.11 provides, in in pertinent part, that 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.
R.C. 2929.11(A). “In advancing these purposes, sentencing courts are instructed to
‘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.’” Smith, 2015-Ohio-4225, at ¶ 10, quoting R.C.
2929.11(A). “Meanwhile, R.C. 2929.11(B) states that felony sentences must be
‘commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct
and its impact upon the victim’ and also be consistent with sentences imposed in
similar cases.” Id., quoting R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶13} “In accordance with these principles, the trial court must consider the
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12(B)-(E) relating to the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct and the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism.” Id., citing R.C.
2929.12(A). “‘A sentencing court has broad discretion to determine the relative
weight to assign the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting State
-6-
Case No. 6-22-10
v. Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524, 2011-Ohio-5032, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), citing
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 (2000).
{¶14} “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any
specific factual findings on the record.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-
Ohio-6729, ¶ 20. See also Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32; Jones at ¶ 47
(Fischer, J., concurring). “A trial court’s statement that it considered the required
statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the
sentencing statutes.” Maggette at ¶ 32, citing State v. Abrams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 103786, 2016-Ohio-4570, citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-
Ohio-4642, ¶ 18.
{¶15} In this case, Bates’s sentence was jointly recommended by the parties
and imposed by the trial court. Because Bates’s sentence was jointly recommended
by the parties and imposed by the trial court, this court may review only whether
the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under
R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. See Jones at ¶ 28, 32; State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d
94, 2016-Ohio-2696, ¶ 43. See also State v. Castro, 3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-21-
06, 2021-Ohio-4476, ¶ 17-18; Jones at ¶ 47-49 (Fischer, J., concurring). Based on
our review of the record, Bates’s sentence is authorized by law. Specifically, the
trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under R.C.
-7-
Case No. 6-22-10
2929.11 and 2929.12 in Bates’s December 23, 2020 sentencing entry.1 (Doc. No.
32). Consequently, Bates’s sentence is not subject to review under R.C.
2953.08(D)(1). State v. Likens, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2020-10-018, 2021-
Ohio-2380, ¶ 10.
{¶16} Therefore, Bates’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶17} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr
1
Bates did not provide this court with a transcript of the December 23, 2020 sentencing hearing. In the
absence of a transcript or suitable alterative, we must presume regularity of the proceedings in the trial court.
Accord State v. Erickson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25843, 2014-Ohio-1536, ¶ 2. See App.R. 9.
-8-