State v. Wedel , 2024 Ohio 5157 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Wedel, 2024-Ohio-5157.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
UNION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 14-24-20
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM MATTHEW WEDEL, JR., OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 23-CR-0169
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 28, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Melissa A. Chase and Raymond Kelly Hamilton for Appellee
Case No. 14-24-20
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant William Matthew Wedel (“Wedel”) brings this
appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County finding
him guilty of felonious assault and sentencing him to a prison term of eight to twelve
years. Wedel claims on appeal that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum
sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On July 21, 2023, the Union County Grand Jury indicted Wedel on two
counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), a felony
of the second degree. The victim in this case was a 3 year old child who had suffered
a broken left arm. The victim informed the forensic interviewer that Wedel had
“smacked his arm on mom’s table and it hurt bad.” Medical reports showed multiple
healing fractures. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Wedel agreed to change his plea to
guilty and the State agreed to dismiss one of the counts of the indictment. There
was no agreement as to the sentence. Before the trial court accepted the plea, Wedel
was informed that he could receive a prison term with a maximum sentence of 12
years. Additionally, the State read a statement of facts indicating the injuries
suffered by the victim and Wedel agreed with the statement of facts. The trial court
accepted the change of plea, ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”), and set
sentencing for a later date.
-2-
Case No. 14-24-20
{¶3} On January 25, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The trial
court noted that it had considered the statements of the State and Wedel, the PSI,
the statutory factors, and the purposes and principles of sentencing. The PSI
included the medical records of the victim showing multiple healing fractures. The
PSI also noted that the victim indicated that Wedel had “smacked his arm on mom’s
table, and it hurt bad.” PSI at 4. The victim also stated that when Wedel was mad
at the victim, Wedel “hurts me, and he whips me”. PSI at 5. The trial court then
imposed the maximum minimum sentence of eight years with a four year tail for an
aggregate prison sentence of eight to twelve years. Wedel appealed from this
judgment and raises the following sentence on appeal.
The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to a maximum
sentence on the single count of felonious assault.
{¶4} The sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in imposing a
maximum sentence. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will only reverse
a sentence “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, 2016-Ohio-1002. “[A]n appellate
court’s authority to modify or vacate a sentence is limited to situations in which it
concludes that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under
certain specified statutes, not including R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones,
2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 38. “A sentence imposed within the statutory range is not
-3-
Case No. 14-24-20
contrary to law as long as the trial court considered the purposes and principles of
felony sentencing contained in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors contained
in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Paxson, 2024-Ohio-2680, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.) quoting State v.
Lane, 2022-Ohio-3775, ¶ 85 (3d Dist.).
{¶5} Wedel claims on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing the
maximum sentence. In support of this argument, Wedel argues that the trial court
failed to properly consider the statutory factors of R.C. 2929.12 and considered the
dismissed charge when imposing a sentence. A review of the record shows that the
trial court specifically addressed the R.C. 2929.12 statutory factors at the sentencing
hearing and in its journal entry. The trial court also considered the purposes and
principles of sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11. The range of minimum prison
terms for a felony of the second degree allows for an eight year minimum with a tail
of four years for a maximum sentence of twelve years. R.C. 2929.14(A)(2) and
R.C. 2929.144. Since the proper considerations were made and the sentence
imposed was within the statutory range, the sentence is not contrary to law.
{¶6} Wedel also claims that the sentence was improper because the trial court
considered the other injuries suffered by the victim when there was a possibility that
Wedel did not inflict those injuries. Wedel maintains that the application of this
consideration to the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 makes the sentence
contrary to law because it is not included in the list of statutory factors. However,
the statute specifically provides that the trial court shall consider all relevant factors
-4-
Case No. 14-24-20
not included in the list when determining the seriousness and likelihood of
recidivism. R.C. 2929.12(B), (C), (D), and (E). Additionally, the trial court may
consider conduct supporting charges which have been dismissed as part of a plea
agreement when determining an appropriate sentence. State v. Lanning, 2020-Ohio-
2863, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). “This Court, pursuant to Jones, lacks the authority to review
the record to consider how a trial court has applied the purposes and principles of
felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in
R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Paxson, 2024-Ohio-2680, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.). As we cannot
review how the trial court uses the evidence before it when considering the statutory
factors, we do not find the sentence contrary to law. The assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶7} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/hls
-5-