State v. Toler

[Cite as State v. Toler, 2022-Ohio-2917.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HARDIN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 6-21-14
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RONNIE LEE TOLER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hardin County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CRI 2021 2098
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 22, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Edwin M. Bibler for Appellant
McKenzie J. Klingler for Appellee
Case No. 6-21-14
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ronnie Lee Toler (“Toler”) brings this appeal
from the Hardin County Common Pleas Court sentencing him to eighteen months
in prison. On appeal, Toler claims that the trial court erred in sentencing him to a
maximum sentence when the agreed sentence was community control. For the
reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On July 15, 2021, the Hardin County Grand Jury indicted on Count 1 -
Trespass in Habitation in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B), (E), a felony of the fourth
degree and Count 2 - Criminal Damaging or Endangering in violation of R.C.
2909.06(A)(1), (B), a misdemeanor of the second degree. Doc. 1. Toler entered
pleas of not guilty to the counts of the indictment. Doc. 5. On November 10, 2021,
Toler entered a plea agreement in which he agreed to enter a plea of guilty to Count
1. Doc. 21. After speaking with Toler, the trial court accepted the plea and found
Toler guilty of Count 1. Doc. 22. The sentencing hearing was held on December
6, 2021. Doc. 26. The State and Toler jointly recommended a sentence of
community control. Tr. 3. However, the trial court rejected the recommendation
and imposed a prison term of 18 months after considering the overriding purposes
of felony sentencing contained in R.C. 2929.11 and the statutory factors set forth in
R.C. 2929.12. Doc. 26. Toler appeals from this judgment and on appeal raises the
following assignment of error.
-2-
Case No. 6-21-14
The trial court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence
contrary to R.C. 2929.11 and the purpose and principles of the
felony sentencing guidelines.
{¶3} In the sole assignment of error, Toler claims that the trial court abused
its discretion in imposing the sentence. Initially this Court notes that our standard
of review in this matter is not one of abuse of discretion, but whether the sentence
is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,
2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 10, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (holding that appellate courts may not apply
an abuse of discretion standard to sentencing term challenges) and R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited the review of the
sentence imposed by holding that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not provide a basis
for 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.” State
v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39, 169 N.E.3d 649. A trial court
has full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range. State v.
Johnson, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-20-48, 2021-Ohio-1768, ¶ 9, 173 N.E.3d 94. When
reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after applying R.C. 2929.11 and
R.C. 2929.12, this Court shall no longer analyze whether those sentences are
unsupported by the record. Our task is simply to determine whether those sentences
are contrary to law. State v. Criswell, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-21-40, 2022-Ohio-
2450, ¶ 13.
-3-
Case No. 6-21-14
{¶4} This Court has no authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to reverse the
sentence on the grounds that the record does not support the trial court’s application
of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The record before us confirms that the trial court
considered the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 and considered the
overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11. The sentence
imposed was within the statutory range of sentences. Thus, the sentence imposed
was not contrary to law. The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶5} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued, the
judgment of the Hardin County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/hls
-4-