State v. Walker

[Cite as State v. Walker, 2020-Ohio-4512.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 5-20-13
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TERRELL E. WALKER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2018-CR-305
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: September 21, 2020
APPEARANCES:
Brian A. Smith for Appellant
Colleen P. Limerick for Appellee
Case No. 5-20-13
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Terrell E. Walker (“Walker”) appeals the
judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that his sentence
is not supported by the record. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On August 15, 2018, Shawntrina Alford (“Alford”) was pulled over for
speeding by the Ohio State Highway Patrol. PSI. Walker and two of Alford’s
children were passengers in the vehicle driven by Alford. PSI. The State Trooper
detected an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. PSI. The State Trooper
then searched the vehicle and found plastic baggies that contained marijuana and a
powdery substance. PSI. After making this discovery, the State Trooper placed
Walker and Alford under arrest. PSI. Subsequent testing revealed that the powdery
substance in the baggie was a compound that contained heroin, fentanyl, and
cocaine. PSI.
{¶3} On August 28, 2018, Walker was indicted on one count of possession
of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Doc. 1. This charge included a
specification that Walker was a major drug offender. Doc. 1. On August 14, 2019,
Walker pled guilty to one count of possession of heroin in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A). Doc. 48. The major drug offender specification was dismissed. Doc.
48. The trial court then found Walker guilty on September 10, 2019 and ordered
-2-
Case No. 5-20-13
that a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) be prepared. Doc. 50. The trial court
scheduled a sentencing hearing for November 14, 2019. Doc. 50. However, Walker
failed to appear for his scheduled sentencing hearing. Doc. 51, 57. The trial court
then issued a bench warrant for Walker. Doc. 51, 57.
{¶4} On January 2, 2020, the trial court issued an order that continued
Walker’s sentencing hearing for February 3, 2020. Doc. 58. Walker appeared
before the trial court for sentencing on February 3, 2020. Tr. 1. The trial court
ordered Walker to serve an eight-year prison sentence. Doc. 60. The trial court
then issued a judgment entry of sentencing on February 18, 2020. Doc. 60.
Assignment of Error
{¶5} Walker filed his notice of appeal on March 6, 2020. Doc. 80. On
appeal, Walker raises the following assignment of error:
Because the record, as shown by clear and convincing evidence,
does not support the trial court’s findings, pursuant to R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), the trial court’s sentence of Appellant was not
supported by the record.
Specifically, Walker argues that the trial court did not properly weigh the principles
and purposes of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 or the seriousness and recidivism
factors in R.C. 2929.12.
Legal Standard
{¶6} In ordering a sentence, “[t]he trial court has full discretion to impose
any sentence within the authorized statutory range * * *.” State v. Dayton, 3d Dist.
Union No. 14-16-05, 2016-Ohio-7178, ¶ 15, quoting, State v. King, 2013-Ohio-
-3-
Case No. 5-20-13
2021, 992 N.E.2d 491, ¶ 45 (2d Dist.). However, R.C. 2929.11(A) directs trial
courts to sentence convicted felons in accordance with the overriding purposes of
felony sentencing, which
are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and
others and to punish 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 effectuate compliance with these overriding purposes, the
Ohio Revised Code requires the trial court to consider a number of factors listed in
R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Walton, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-17-55, 2018-Ohio-1680, ¶ 6.
The R.C. 2929.12 factors direct the trial court to evaluate the seriousness of the
offense and the likelihood of recidivism. R.C. 2929.12.
{¶7} Further, R.C. 2929.11(B) requires a trial court to impose a felony
sentence that is “consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed
by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B). As used in this provision, “‘consistency’
relates to the sentences in the context of sentences given to other offenders * * *.”
State v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-5135, 24 N.E.3d 1197, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). However,
consistency does not necessarily require uniformity. State v. Hall, 179 Ohio App.3d
727, 2008-Ohio-6228, 903 N.E.2d 676, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “R.C. 2929.11(B) does
not require a trial court to impose identical sentences for codefendants.” State v.
McIntosh, 160, Ohio App.3d 544, 2005-Ohio-1760, 828 N.E.2d 138, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.).
-4-
Case No. 5-20-13
{¶8} “The fact that a defendant receives a longer prison sentence than a
codefendant does not, in and of itself establish a violation of the consistency
requirement.” State v. Luce, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 19-COA-001, 2019-Ohio-2875,
¶ 22, quoting State v. Ware, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106176, 2018-Ohio-2294, ¶ 17.
“Rather, the consistency requirement is satisfied when a trial court properly
considers the statutory sentencing factors and principles.” State v. Cargill, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 103902, 2016-Ohio-5932, ¶ 11. Thus, while “offenses may be
similar, distinguishing factors may justify dissimilar sentences.” State v. Zaharie,
9th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0077-M, 2010-Ohio-3542, ¶ 13.
{¶9} “Appellate courts defer to the broad discretion of the trial court in
matters of sentencing.” State v. Jones, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-19-08, 2019-Ohio-
4938, ¶ 7.1 If the defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that his or
her sentence is “(1) contrary to law and/or (2) unsupported by the record,” an
appellate court has the authority, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “to increase,
reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * *.” State v. McGowan, 147 Ohio St.3d
166, 2016-Ohio-2971, 62 N.E.3d 178, ¶ 1.
Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof
which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but
not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a
reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
sought to be established.
1
Trial courts are given discretion in applying the statutory factors in the process of determining an appropriate
sentence. A misapplication of these factors in sentencing that rises to the level of an abuse of discretion is
clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Thus, we examine the record to determine whether the trial court
clearly and convincingly failed to act in accordance with the laws governing the imposition of sentences.
-5-
Case No. 5-20-13
State v. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86 (3d Dist.), ¶ 12, quoting Cross v.
Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118, paragraph three of the syllabus (1954).
Legal Analysis
{¶10} In this case, Walker pled guilty to a felony of the first degree. Doc.
48. A prison sentence was mandatory for the offense in this case. Tr. 14. See R.C.
2929.13(F)(5). Further, his eight-year prison term for this offense falls within the
statutory range of three to eleven years in prison. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(b). At
the sentencing hearing, the trial court expressly considered the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing. Tr. 11. During the sentencing hearing, the trial
court also considered the contents of the PSI, a statement from Walker, and a letter
submitted on Walker’s behalf from a community organization. Tr. 10, 13-14.
{¶11} In the process of weighing the seriousness factors, the trial court noted
that Walker was found to be in possession of “a high amount of drugs * * *.” Tr.
12. The PSI indicated that the baggies discovered by the State Trooper contained
229.31 grams of a heroin compound and 1.01 grams of marijuana. PSI. However,
the trial court also considered that the seriousness of possessing such a large amount
of a controlled substance was “built into the nature of this offense” as it was classed
as a felony of the first degree. Tr. 12.
{¶12} As to the recidivism factors, Walker stated, at the sentencing hearing,
that he was remorseful for his conduct. Tr. 14. See R.C. 2929.12(E)(5). The
Defense also obtained a letter from a community organization that indicated that
-6-
Case No. 5-20-13
Walker had been involved as a volunteer in a sports program for at risk youth. Tr.
10, 13. PSI. The trial court then considered the fact that Walker did not have a
juvenile record. Tr. 13. See R.C. 2929.12(E)(1).
{¶13} However, the trial court noted that Walker did have “a fairly serious,
fairly lengthy adult criminal record, which * * * indicates recidivism is more likely.”
Tr. 13. See R.C. 2929.12(D)(2). Walker had also served, at least, three prison terms
but continued his pattern of criminal behavior. See R.C. 2929.12(D)(3). The trial
court noted that Walker, at the time of this offense, was “on bond or supervised
release” for an offense that he committed in Michigan in 2017. Tr. 13. PSI. See
R.C. 2929.12(D)(1). The PSI also indicated that, while Walker was on bond, he
failed to report as directed on at least four occasions and reported late on at least
fifteen occasions. PSI. Tr. 13.
{¶14} On November 14, 2019, Walker, failed to appear for his sentencing
hearing. PSI. Doc. 9, 51. On January 2, 2020, the trial court continued Walker’s
sentencing hearing to February 3, 2020. Doc. 58. In the interim, Walker was placed
in the Hancock County Justice Center and the Mercer County Jail.2 PSI. He had no
reported infractions during his time in each of these facilities. PSI.
{¶15} Walker points to the fact that his recidivism score in his PSI was listed
as “moderate” and argues that this indicates he should not have as lengthy a prison
term as the trial court ordered. PSI. However, the PSI also recommended that
2
For a time, Walker was placed in the Mercer County Jail because of overcrowding. PSI.
-7-
Case No. 5-20-13
Walker receive an eight-year prison term in this case. PSI. Walker has not
demonstrated how the trial court imposed a sentence that was contrary to law by
ordering an eight-year sentence when his recidivism risk was moderate. See State
v. Castle, 2016-Ohio-4974, 67 N.E.3d 1283, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.) (wherein the appellate
court affirmed the trial court’s decision to impose a maximum prison sentence even
though the PSI found the defendant’s risk level was moderate and recommended he
only serve community supervision.). See State v. Bray, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-
CA-22, 2017-Ohio-118, ¶ 33.
{¶16} On appeal, Walker also argues that his eight-year prison sentence was
not consistent with Alford’s four-year prison sentence for the same offense. See
R.C. 2929.11(B). However, at Walker’s sentencing hearing, the trial court stated
that Alford received a shorter sentence because she “had a vastly different criminal
history.” Tr. 14. See Cargill, supra, at ¶ 13. The trial court noted that Alford,
unlike Walker, did not have “multiple prior felony convictions.” Tr. 14. See State
v. Allen, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-487, 2011-Ohio-1757, ¶ 24. The difference
in Walker and Alford’s sentences came from the trial court’s application of the R.C.
2929.12 factors to the circumstances of these two cases. State v. Beasley, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 82884, 2004-Ohio-988, ¶ 23. Thus, in this argument, Walker has
only established that his sentence and Alford’s sentence were not uniform. He has
not carried the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
trial court acted contrary to law by ordering a longer prison sentence for him than
-8-
Case No. 5-20-13
for Alford. See State v. Gordon, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2005CA00031, 2005-Ohio-
3638, ¶ 46 (holding that the application of the factors and guidelines in R.C. 2929.11
and R.C. 2929.12 “create consistency in sentencing.”).
{¶17} After reviewing the materials in the record, we conclude that Walker’s
sentence is supported by the facts in the record. We find no indication in the record
that the trial court abused its discretion and imposed a prison sentence that was
contrary to law. Because Walker did not carry the burden of demonstrating, by clear
and convincing evidence, that his sentence was not supported by the record, his sole
assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶18} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW P.J. and ZIMMERMAN J., concur.
/hls
-9-