State v. Adams ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Adams, 2021-Ohio-2862.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-21-017
WD-21-018
Appellee
Trial Court No. 2020CR0171
2020CR0060
v.
Damian Adams DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 20, 2021
*****
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Autumn D Adams, for appellant.
*****
ZMUDA, P.J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Damian Adams, appeals the March
10, 2021 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an
aggregate four-and-a-half year prison term following his convictions for aggravated drug
trafficking. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
A. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 1} On February 6, 2020, Adams was indicted on one count of aggravated
possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony;
one count of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C.
2925.14(C)(1) and (F)(1), a fourth-degree misdemeanor; one count of aggravated drug
trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(1)(a), a fourth-degree felony; and
one count of possession of drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A) and
(C), a second-degree misdemeanor. Appellant’s indictments for aggravated drug
trafficking and possession of drug abuse instruments each included a related specification
for forfeiture of a cell phone in a drug case pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A). These four
charges were assigned Wood County Court of Common Pleas case No. 2020-CR-060.
{¶ 2} On April 30, 2020, appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated drug
trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(f), a first-degree felony; and one
count of aggravated drug trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(e), a
first-degree felony. Each of these counts included a related major drug offender
specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.1410(A). These two charges were assigned Wood
County Court of Common Pleas case No. 2020-CR-171.
2.
{¶ 3} On March 8, 2021, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant entered a guilty
plea to one count of aggravated drug trafficking in case number 2020-CR-060 and one
amended count of aggravated drug trafficking in case number 2020-CR-171. The trial
court dismissed the remaining charges and specifications at the state’s request. The
matter proceeded immediately to sentencing, without objection from appellant, where the
trial court imposed an eighteen-month prison term on appellant’s conviction in case
number 2021-CR-060 and a three-year prison term on appellant’s conviction in case
number 2021-CR-171. The trial court ordered appellant’s sentences to be served
consecutively, resulting in a four-and-a-half year aggregate prison term. The sentence
was memorialized in a judgment entry dated March 10, 2021.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 4} Appellant timely appealed and asserted the following error, with two
subparts, for our review:
Appellant’s consecutive sentence is excessive and therefore contrary
to law and must be reversed:
1. Adams’ sentence of 4.5 years of incarceration fails to meet the
principles and purposes of sentencing as he is clearly suffering from a drug
addiction, there was no evidence to support the drugs were for anything but
personal use, and he wants drug treatment.
2. The trial court improperly weighed various factors it was required
to consider under R.C. 2929.12.
3.
II. Analysis
{¶ 5} Appellant does not challenge the trial court’s imposition of a prison term,
generally, or the length of the individual prison terms on each conviction. Instead, he
argues that the total aggregate prison term was “excessive” under the felony sentencing
guidelines established in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Appellant asks this court to review
the trial court’s consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 as they relate to the
imposition of consecutive sentences and, in turn, to reverse the imposition of consecutive
sentences and order the terms to be served concurrently for a total three-year term of
incarceration. Appellant’s request is without merit, however, as we are not permitted to
conduct the review he requests.
{¶ 6} Generally, we review felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2),
which permits appellate courts to vacate or modify a felony sentence when certain
required statutory findings—including the consecutive sentencing findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)—are not supported by the record or when the sentence is “otherwise contrary
to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b). Two recent Ohio Supreme Court holdings have
clarified the precise nature of our review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and are applicable to
this appeal.
{¶ 7} First, in State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d
169, ¶ 16, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “[b]ecause R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)
specifically mentions a sentencing judge’s findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) as
falling within a court of appeals’ review, the General Assembly plainly intended R.C.
4.
2953.08(G)(2)(a) to be the exclusive means of appellate review of consecutive
sentences.” (emphasis added). Conversely, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 apply only to
individual sentences.” Id. at ¶ 17 (emphasis sic.). Therefore, an appellate court’s review
of consecutive sentences is limited to challenges of a trial court’s findings under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4), as described in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a).
{¶ 8} Second, in State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42, the Ohio
Supreme Court held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an “appellate court to
independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the
trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12.” Applying Jones, we previously held that “assigning error to the trial court’s
imposition of sentence as contrary to law based solely on its consideration of R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 is no longer grounds for this court to find reversible error.” State
v. Orzechowski, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-029, 2021-Ohio-985, ¶ 13 (emphasis added).
{¶ 9} Here, appellant argues that that trial court erred when it imposed consecutive
sentences because consecutive sentences did not satisfy the purposes of felony sentencing
under R.C. 2929.11 and because the trial court improperly weighed mitigating factors
established in R.C. 2929.12(D) and (E). Appellant failed, however, to identify any error
in the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the exclusive procedural
mechanism under which offenders can appeal consecutive sentences. Gwynne at ¶ 15.
Moreover, even if appellant had challenged the individual sentences, we are precluded
5.
from reviewing the trial court’s consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors
when determining the appropriateness of a sentence. Jones at ¶ 13.
{¶ 10} Put simply, appellant has failed to assign any cognizable error to the trial
court’s imposition of consecutive prison terms which is subject to review by this court.
Therefore, appellant’s assignment of error is found not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 11} We find appellant’s assignment of error not well-taken and affirm the
March 10, 2021 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant is
ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.
_______________________________
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
6.