State v. Williams ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2024-Ohio-2078.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. CT2023-0073
:
CAMERON D. WILLIAMS, JR. :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2023-0259
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 29, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
RONALD L. WELCH CHRIS BRIGDON
MUSKINGUM CO. PROSECUTOR 8138 Somerset Road
JOHN CONNOR DEVER Thornville, OH 43076
27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, OH 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 2
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Cameron D. Williams, Jr., appeals from the September 21, 2023
Entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} The following facts are adduced from appellee’s statement at the change-
of-plea hearing on August 2, 2023.
{¶3} On May 13, 2022, a state trooper traffic-stopped a vehicle in which appellant
was a passenger. The trooper noticed the smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle
and appellant admitted there was “a gram or two” of marijuana in the vehicle. Appellant
was removed from the vehicle and placed in a cruiser.
{¶4} The officer observed a small baggie containing a white substance outside
the door of the cruiser and asked for another officer’s assistance. The trooper asked
appellant whether the substance was cocaine; at first, appellant said it was powdered
sugar and then said it was cocaine. The substance was lab tested and determined to be
4.2 grams of fentanyl.
{¶5} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of possession of a
fentanyl-related compound pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A) and 2925.11(C)(11)(b), a felony
of the fourth degree [Count I] and one count of tampering with evidence pursuant to R.C.
2921.12(A)(1) and (2) and R.C. 2921.12(B), a felony of the third degree [Count II].
{¶6} On August 2, 2023, appellant appeared before the trial court and entered
pleas of guilty as charged; the matter was continued for sentencing. The trial court
ordered a pre-sentence investigation (P.S.I.).
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 3
{¶7} Appellant appeared for sentencing on September 18, 2023. On the record
and in the sentencing entry, the trial court noted appellant had a lengthy criminal history;
the instant offenses were committed shortly after appellant was released from prison and
while he was on post-release control; appellant had multiple write-ups while in prison; and
appellant was historically unsuccessful on probation, judicial release, and post-release
control. The trial court imposed a prison term of 18 months upon Count I and 36 months
upon Count II, ordering the terms to be served consecutively.
{¶8} The trial court terminated appellant’s post-release control on three Summit
County cases and imposed the remaining time on those terms to be served in prison,
consecutive to the 54-month term in the instant case.
{¶9} The trial court found the imposition of consecutive sentences to be
necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish appellant, that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct, and to the
danger appellant poses to the public.
{¶10} The trial court further found appellant’s history of criminal conduct
demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by appellant.
{¶11} Appellant was also notified of a 2-year period of post-release control in the
instant case and of penalties for violation thereof.
{¶12} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s sentencing entry of September
18, 2023.
{¶13} Appellant raises two assignments of error:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 4
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶14} “I. THE PROPORTIONALITY OF THE SENTENCE WAS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN O.R.C. 2929.11 AND FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED IN O.R.C. 2929.12.”
{¶15} “II. SHOULD THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE TRIAL
COURT’S DECISION TO IMPOSE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ON COUNTS 1-2
BECAUSE THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
SENTENCING STATUTES (sic).”
ANALYSIS
I., II.
{¶16} Appellant’s two assignments of error are related and will be considered
together. He argues his sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offenses
and that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. We disagree.
{¶17} A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by R.C. 2953.08(F) to
review the entire trial court record, including any oral or written statements and
presentence investigation reports. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) through (4). We review felony
sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08. State v. Marcum, 146
Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we
may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing
where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the
sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or
2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. See, also, State v. Bonnell, 140
Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.2d 659, ¶ 28.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 5
Maximum sentence
{¶18} A trial court's imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony conviction is
not contrary to law if the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the
court considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C.
2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. State v.
Carbaugh, 5th Dist. No. CT2022-0050, 2023-Ohio-1269, 213 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 26, internal
citations omitted. “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 require [the] court to make any
specific factual findings on the record.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-
6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 20, citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669,
951 N.E.2d 381, ¶ 31, and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000).
{¶19} In State v. Bryant, the Court clarified,
The narrow holding in Jones [163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-
6729, 169 N.E.3d 649] is that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an
appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that
the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12. See Jones at ¶ 31, 39. Nothing about that holding should
be construed as prohibiting appellate review of a sentence when the
claim is that the sentence was improperly imposed based on
impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside
those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Indeed, in
Jones, this court made clear that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits
appellate courts to reverse or modify sentencing decisions that are “
‘otherwise contrary to law.’ ” Jones at ¶ 32, quoting R.C.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 6
2953.08(G)(2)(b). This court also recognized that “otherwise contrary
to law” means “ ‘in violation of statute or legal regulations at a given
time.’ ” Id. at ¶ 34 quoting Black's Law Dictionary 328 (6th Ed.1990).
Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors
or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by
R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law. Claims
that raise these types of issues are therefore reviewable.
State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198
N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22.
{¶20} In the instant case, on the record at the sentencing hearing, the trial court
noted appellant was released from prison two months before he was found with fentanyl.
Appellant’s criminal history was replete with failures to complete post-release control and
probation orders. He has prior convictions for aggravated drug trafficking and trafficking
fentanyl, along with having a weapon while under disability. Appellant was convicted of
escape and possession of heroin. Upon judicial release from prison in those cases, he
violated probation by failing to complete counseling. Appellant admitted on the record
he’s never completed judicial release requirements because he’s always “caught a new
case” while on probation from a prior case. T. 11. Appellant agreed with the trial court
that while on probation from numerous felonies, he continued to commit new felonies. T.
13. Appellant claimed to be sober but admitted using drugs in prison to “help [him] get
through the time.” T. 13. The offenses in the instant case were committed while appellant
was on probation in Summit County, and he claimed he thought he bought cocaine but
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 7
someone gave him fentanyl. The trial court further noted appellant’s numerous write-ups
in prison for drug use.
{¶21} Appellant argues generally that the trial court failed to recognize he had
“turned a corner” in his life and was living lawfully and productively, an assertion belied
by the fact that he admittedly bought fentanyl two months after release from prison. We
can discern from the record that the trial court considered the sentencing factors in R.C.
and R.C. 2929.12. Appellant fails to point to any factors or considerations extraneous
to those permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that would establish the sentence is
contrary to law.
{¶22} We conclude that the trial court did not commit error when it sentenced
appellant to the maximum sentences. Upon review, we find that the trial court's
sentencing on the charges complies with applicable rules and sentencing statutes. While
appellant may disagree with the weight given to these factors by the trial judge, his
sentence was within the applicable statutory range and therefore, we have no basis for
concluding that it is contrary to law. Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court
imposed the sentence based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that
fall outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Carbaugh, supra,
2023-Ohio-1269, 213 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.).
Consecutive sentences
{¶23} Appellant further argues the trial court was not authorized to order his
sentence to be served consecutively. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) addresses consecutive
sentences and provides:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 8
(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for
convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender
to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the
consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are
not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and
to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also
finds any of the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple
offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was
under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or
2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for
a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as
part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two
or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or
unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed
as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the
seriousness of the offender's conduct.
(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates
that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
future crime by the offender.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 9
{¶24} The trial court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing
hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to
state reasons to support its findings, nor must it recite certain talismanic words or phrases
in order to be considered to have complied. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-
Ohio-3177, syllabus.
{¶25} On the record at the hearing and in the sentencing entry, the trial court found
the imposition of consecutive sentences to be necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish appellant, that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of appellant’s conduct, and to the danger appellant poses to the public.
Further, appellant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences
are necessary to protect the public from future crime by appellant. T. 17.
{¶26} In the instant case, there is no dispute that the trial court made the required
findings to impose consecutive sentences. Appellant argues, though, that possession of
drugs is a victimless crime and over a 16-month period appellant demonstrated he is not
a danger to the public. Brief, 10.
{¶27} After reviewing the entire record de novo and weighing the quality and
quantity of the evidence, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the
consecutive-sentence findings of the trial court. State v. Jolly, 5th Dist. Muskingum No.
CT2023-0001, 2023-Ohio-2189, ¶ 24, appeal not allowed, 171 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2023-
Ohio-3789, 219 N.E.3d 971. In fact, there was ample evidentiary support for the trial court
to find that consecutive sentence was necessary to protect the public from future crime
or to punish appellant, consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0073 10
seriousness of his conduct and to the danger he posed to the public, and consecutive
sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crimes. Id.{¶28} The trial court did not err in its sentencing of appellant and his two
assignments of error are overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶29} Appellant’s two assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.,
Gwin, J. and
Baldwin, J., concur.