State v. Williams , 2024 Ohio 4837 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2024-Ohio-4837.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
AUGLAIZE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 2-24-02
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MATTHEW F. WILLIAMS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2024-CR-01
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 7, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Nicholas A. Catania for Appellant
Joshua A. Muhlenkamp for Appellee
Case No. 2-24-02
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Matthew F. Williams (“Williams”), appeals the
March 28, 2024 judgment entry of sentencing of the Auglaize County Court of
Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} This case stems from a traffic stop and subsequent arrest of Williams
for possession of methamphetamine. Two days later, while incarcerated at the
Auglaize County Jail, it was discovered that Williams had more than 35 grams of
cocaine concealed on his person. Williams admitted to bringing the cocaine into
the jail, using it, and passing it around to other inmates.
{¶3} On January 4, 2024, the Auglaize County Grand Jury indicted Williams
on Count One of aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine) in violation
of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(c), a second-degree felony; Count Two of possession of
cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(4)(e), a first-degree felony; and Count
Three of illegal conveyance of drugs onto the grounds of a detention facility in
violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. Williams appeared
for arraignment on January 5, 2024, and entered pleas of not guilty.
{¶4} On March 27, 2024, Williams withdrew his plea of not guilty and
entered a guilty plea, under a negotiated plea agreement, to Count Two of the
indictment. In exchange for his guilty plea to Count Two, the State moved to
dismiss Counts One and Three of the indictment, which the trial court granted. The
-2-
Case No. 2-24-02
trial court accepted Williams’s guilty plea, found him guilty, and sentenced
Williams to a minimum term of nine years in prison to a maximum term of 13.5
years in prison on Count Two of possession of cocaine, a first-degree felony.1
{¶5} On April 19, 2024, Williams filed a notice of appeal. He raises one
assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error When It Failed To
Properly Follow The Sentencing Criteria Set Forth In Ohio
Revised Code, Section 2929.14 Resulting In The Defendant-
Appellant Receiving A Sentence Which Is Contrary To Law.
{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Williams argues that the sentence
imposed by the trial court is not supported by the record because he “did not hurt
anyone or intend to hurt anyone” and he is “not a violent man or a threat to society.”
(Appellant’s Brief at 11). Even though Williams concedes that his sentence is
within the statutory range for a first-degree felony, he requests that the sentence be
vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing to a shorter prison term.
Standard of Review
{¶7} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce,
otherwise modify, or vacate 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,
1
The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentencing on March 28, 2024.
-3-
Case No. 2-24-02
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.’” Marcum at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469(1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
Analysis
{¶8} “‘Trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the
statutory range.’” State v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-4225, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v.
Noble, 2014-Ohio-5485, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.). “A sentence imposed within the statutory
range is generally valid so long as the trial court considered the applicable statutory
policies that apply to every felony sentencing, including those contained in R.C.
2929.11, and the sentencing factors of 2929.12.” State v. Wyne, 2022-Ohio-4068, ¶
18 (3d Dist.).
{¶9} In relevant part, R.C. 2929.11 provides that
[t]he 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). To achieve the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, R.C.
2929.11 directs the sentencing court 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.”
-4-
Case No. 2-24-02
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.’” Smith at ¶ 10, quoting R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶10} “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.” Smith at ¶ 10. “‘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 v. Brimacombe, 2011-
Ohio-5032, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.).
{¶11} In this case, the trial court sentenced Williams to a minimum term of
nine years in prison to a maximum term of 13.5 years in prison for possession of
cocaine, a first-degree felony. For a first-degree felony,
the prison term shall be an indefinite prison term with a stated
minimum term selected by the court of three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine, ten, or eleven years and a maximum term that is [equal to
the stated minimum term plus fifty per cent of that term].
R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(a). See also R.C. 2929.144(A) and (B)(1). Thus, the trial court
sentenced Williams within the permissible statutory range for a first-degree felony.
{¶12} In addition, the record reflects that the trial court considered R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 when fashioning Williams’s sentence. At the combined
change-of-plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it considered the
-5-
Case No. 2-24-02
purposes and principles of felony sentencing. As to the applicable sentencing
factors, the trial court noted that Williams has a “sad and tragic record” that includes
two prior convictions for trafficking in drugs and several drug-possession
convictions. (March 27, 2024 Tr. at 45).
{¶13} With respect to his extensive criminal record, Williams informed the
trial court that he is 57 years of age and has “spent most of [his] life in prison.” (Id.
at 37). Williams stated that he started abusing drugs at 18 and that he sells drugs to
support his addiction. The trial court noted that Williams recently served four years
in prison for a trafficking-in-cocaine conviction from 2018. As to the instant
possession-of-cocaine offense, Williams admitted to bringing the cocaine into the
jail, using it, and passing it around to other inmates.
{¶14} Based on our review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not
err in sentencing Williams to a minimum term of nine years in prison to a maximum
term of 13.5 years in prison for possession of cocaine, a first-degree felony. As
detailed above, the trial court considered the seriousness of Williams’s conduct and
the likelihood of his recidivism. The trial court also considered his extensive
criminal history that includes trafficking-in-cocaine convictions and drug-
possession offenses. Therefore, because Williams’s sentence is within the
permissible statutory range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12, the sentence is valid and not contrary to law. See Wyne, 2022-Ohio-4068,
at ¶ 18 (3d Dist.).
-6-
Case No. 2-24-02
{¶15} Williams’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} 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
WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls
-7-