[Cite as State v. Ewert, 2012-Ohio-2671.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2012-0002
JOSHUA EWERT
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2011-0203
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 14, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
D. MICHAEL HADDOX ROBERT D. ESSEX
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 604 East Rich Street
RONALD L. WELCH Columbus, Ohio 43215
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
27 North Fifth Street
Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Joshua Ewert appeals his sentence and conviction on
one count of breaking and entering and one count of theft following a guilty plea in the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶3} On September 7, 2011, Appellant Joshua Ewert was indicted for one count
of Breaking and Entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13, a felony of the fifth degree, and
one count of Theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, also a felony of the fifth degree.
{¶4} On December 6, 2011, Appellant pled guilty to both counts.
{¶5} No joint recommendation or recommendation from the State was made as
to sentencing other than a request for restitution of $3,810.62.
{¶6} The State agreed that Counts 1 and 2 merged for purposes of sentencing
and that Appellant should be sentenced on Count 1.
{¶7} The trial court accepted Appellant's pleas, denied trial counsel's request for
a presentence investigation, and proceeded to sentence Appellant to a maximum
sentence of 12 months on Count One.
{¶8} Appellant now appeals the sentence, assigning the following error for
review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶9} “I. PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE 2953.08, THE TRIAL COURT’S
SENTENCE WAS CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY CONTRARY TO LAW, WAS AN
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 3
ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND VIOLATED THE PROPORTIONALITY
REQUIREMENT OF OHIO SENTENCING LAWS. “
I.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in
sentencing. We disagree.
{¶11} Within this assignment of error, defendant complains that the trial court did
not properly consider or apply the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 or apply
the need for rehabilitation under R.C. 2929.11(A). He additionally complains that the
court failed to consider the proportionality of the sentence.
{¶12} We begin our analysis with the premise that the trial court has wide
discretion to sentence an offender within the allowable statutory range permitted for a
particular degree of offense. State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. In State
v. Foster, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that “trial courts have full discretion to impose
a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings
and give reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive or more than the minimum
sentence.” Id. at paragraph seven of the syllabus.
{¶13} R.C. 2929.11(B) provides that a felony sentence must be reasonably
calculated to achieve the two purposes set forth in R.C. 2929.11(A): commensurate with
and not demeaning to the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the victim and
consistent with sentences imposed on similarly-situated offenders. The court must also
consider the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.
{¶14} However, R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 do not mandate judicial fact-finding.
Rather, “[t]he court is merely to ‘consider’ the statutory factors.” Foster at ¶ 42. Thus, “in
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 4
exercising its discretion, a court is merely required to ‘consider’ the purposes of
sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the statutory * * * factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.”
State v. Sutton, 8th Dist. No. 97132, 2012–Ohio–1054, ¶ 11, citing State v. Lloyd, 11th
Dist. No. 2006–L–185, 2007-Ohio-3013, ¶ 44.
{¶15} Subsequent to Foster, in a plurality opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court
established a two-step procedure for reviewing a felony sentence. State v. Kalish, 120
Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912. The first step is to “examine the sentencing court's
compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine
whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. If this
first step is satisfied, the second step requires the trial court's decision be reviewed
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.
{¶16} In State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-6320, the Ohio Supreme
Court recently held, at paragraph two of the syllabus, that the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517, did not
revive Ohio's former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)
and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in Foster and imposed no fact-finding
obligation on Ohio's trial courts. Id. at ¶ 39.
{¶17} The General Assembly recently amended R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and enacted
new language requiring fact-finding for consecutive sentences. Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86.
This legislation became effective September 30, 2011.
{¶18} The value in the theft count was altered by H.B. 86, but the level of the
offense was not changed.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 5
{¶19} In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence imposed is
contrary to law.
{¶20} In the case at bar, Appellant was convicted of one count of breaking and
entering, in violation of R.C. 2911.13 and one count of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02,
both fifth degree felonies. The trial court merged the counts and sentenced Appellant on
the Breaking and Entering count.
{¶21} Upon conviction for a felony of the fifth degree, the statutory sentencing
range is six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twelve months. R.C. 2929.14(A)(5).
{¶22} Here, the trial court sentenced Appellant to the maximum sentence of
twelve months.
{¶23} Upon review, we find that the trial court's sentencing on the charge
complies with applicable rules and sentencing statutes. The sentence was within the
statutory sentencing range. Furthermore, the record reflects that the trial court
considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and
recidivism factors as required in Sections 2929.11 and 2929.12 of the Ohio Revised
Code and advised Appellant regarding post-release control. We therefore find that the
sentences are not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
{¶24} Having determined that the sentence is not contrary to law we must now
review the sentence pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard. Kalish at ¶ 4; State v.
Firouzmandi, supra at ¶ 40. In reviewing the record, we find that the trial court gave
careful and substantial deliberation to the relevant statutory considerations.
{¶25} Where the record lacks sufficient data to justify the sentence, the court may
well abuse its discretion by imposing that sentence without a suitable explanation.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 6
Where the record adequately justifies the sentence imposed, the court need not recite
its reasons. State v. Middleton (Jan. 15, 1987), 8th Dist. No. 51545.
{¶26} In other words, an appellate court may review the record to determine
whether the trial court failed to consider the appropriate sentencing factors. State v.
Firouzmandi, 5th Dist. No. 2006–CA-41, 2006–Ohio–5823 at ¶ 52.
{¶27} Accordingly, appellate courts can find an “abuse of discretion” where the
record establishes that a trial judge refused or failed to consider statutory sentencing
factors. Cincinnati v. Clardy (1978), 57 Ohio App.2d 153, 385 N.E.2d 1342.
{¶28} An “abuse of discretion” has also been found where a sentence is greatly
excessive under traditional concepts of justice or is manifestly disproportionate to the
crime or the defendant. Woosley v. United States (1973), 478 F.2d 139, 147. The
imposition by a trial judge of a sentence on a mechanical, predetermined or policy basis
is subject to review. Woosley, supra at 143–145. Where the severity of the sentence
shocks the judicial conscience or greatly exceeds penalties usually exacted for similar
offenses or defendants, and the record fails to justify and the trial court fails to explain
the imposition of the sentence, the appellate court's can reverse the sentence. Woosley,
supra at 147. This by no means is an exhaustive or exclusive list of the circumstances
under which an appellate court may find that the trial court abused its discretion in the
imposition of sentence in a particular case. State v. Firouzmandi, supra.
{¶29} Upon review of the record, we find no evidence the judge acted
unreasonably by, for example, selecting the sentence arbitrarily, basing the sentence on
impermissible factors, failing to consider pertinent factors, or giving an unreasonable
amount of weight to any pertinent factor. We find nothing in the record of Appellant's
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 7
case to suggest that his sentence was based on an arbitrary distinction that would
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
{¶30} The trial court in this case considered Appellant’s extensive criminal
history, which included the fact that Appellant had just finished serving an eleven (11)
month sentence three weeks before he committed the instant offense. (T. at 12).
Appellant also had additional trespass and theft charges pending in municipal court at
the time of this sentencing. Id.
{¶31} As to Appellant’s additional challenge regarding the proportionality and
consistency of the sentence, we note that he did not challenge the proportionality of his
sentence or the consistency of it as compared to other similar offenders in the court
below, therefore, he has waived this issue. State v. Santiago, 8th Dist. No. 95516,
2011–Ohio–3058; State v. Lycans, 8th Dist. No. 93480, 2010–Ohio–2780.
{¶32} As relevant to this appeal, under R.C. 2929.11(B), a felony sentence must
be “consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.” “To support a claim that a ‘sentence is disproportionate to sentences
imposed upon other offenders, a defendant must raise this issue before the trial court
and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for
analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal.’ ” State v. Searles, 8th Dist. No. 96549,
2011–Ohio–6275, ¶ 25, quoting State v. Edwards, 8th Dist. No. 89181, 2007–Ohio–
6068, ¶ 11.
{¶33} A felony sentence should be proportionate to the severity of the offense
committed, so as not to “shock the sense of justice in the community.” State v. Chafin,
30 Ohio St.2d 13, 17. See also R.C. 2929.11(B). A defendant alleging disproportionality
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 8
in felony sentencing has the burden of producing evidence to “indicate that his sentence
is directly disproportionate to sentences given to other offenders with similar records
who have committed these offenses * * *.” State v. Breeden, 8th Dist. No. 84663, 2005–
Ohio–510, ¶ 81.
{¶34} Not only did Appellant not raise this issue below, Appellant fails to provide
this Court with any explanation or evidence as to why or how Appellant’s sentence is
disproportionate.
{¶35} While not specifically raised as error, Appellant cites to the trial court’s
failure to order a pre-sentence investigation in this case before imposing his sentence.
We note that Crim.R. 32.2. provides that “[i]n felony cases the court shall, and in
misdemeanor cases the court may, order a presentence investigation and report before
imposing community control sanctions or granting probation.” Therefore, unless a
sentencing court is imposing community control or granting probation in a felony case,
there is no requirement that a court order a pre-sentence investigation. State v. Cyrus
(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 164.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 9
{¶36} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶37} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Hoffman, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 0606
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0002 10
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JOSHUA EWERT :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. CT2012-0002
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES