[Cite as State v. Green, 2019-Ohio-1816.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-18-1065
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201703193
v.
Shawn D. Green DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: May 10, 2019
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Dexter L. Phillips, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
*****
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Shawn Derek Green, appeals from the May 15, 2018 judgment of
the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, where he was sentenced to six years of
incarceration for aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and (C), a felony
of the first degree. Finding no error, we affirm.
Background
{¶ 2} On October 5, 2017, appellant was alleged to have accompanied a friend to
commit a robbery, during which he brandished a deadly weapon. Appellant’s friend paid
him for his involvement.
{¶ 3} On December 19, 2017, appellee, the state of Ohio, indicted appellant for
aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A) and (C), a felony of the first degree,
and for felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D), a felony of the
second degree.
{¶ 4} Appellant initially pled not guilty. However, on February 27, 2018, he
withdrew his not-guilty plea and pled guilty to the aggravated robbery. The court
proceeded with its Crim.R. 11 colloquy, found appellant made a knowing, voluntary plea,
and accepted the plea. Appellee dismissed the felonious assault charge in exchange for
the plea. Sentencing was set for May 9, 2018.
{¶ 5} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years in
prison for the aggravated robbery. The judgment entry was journalized on May 15, 2018,
and appellant timely appeals.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} Appellant asserts the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12, when imposing his six-year prison sentence. Appellee contends the court
considered the necessary criteria in compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
2.
{¶ 7} Appellate courts review felony sentences under the standard set forth in R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), which provides that an “appellate court may vacate or modify a felony
sentence on appeal 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.” See State v Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1.
{¶ 8} R.C. 2929.11(A) pertinently provides, “[t]he overriding purposes of felony
sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to
punish the offender using the minimum sanctions.” It follows, “the sentencing court shall
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.” See R.C. 2929.11(A); State v. Craig, 6th Dist. Wood No.
WD-14-061, 2015-Ohio-1479, ¶ 10. A felony sentence, therefore, “shall be reasonably
calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes * * * set forth in [R.C. 2929.11(A)],
commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and
its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes
committed by similar offenders.” See R.C. 2929.11(B); Craig.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.12(A) pertinently provides, “a court that imposes a sentence
under this chapter upon an offender for a felony has discretion to determine the most
effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.” In this
determination, “R.C. 2929.12 provides a non-exhaustive list of factors the court must
3.
consider in determining the relative seriousness of the underlying crime and the
likelihood that the defendant will commit another offense in the future.” State v.
Kronenberg, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101403, 2015-Ohio-1020, ¶ 26. “The factors
include: (1) the physical, psychological, and economic harm suffered by the victim,
(2) the defendant’s prior criminal record, (3) whether the defendant shows any remorse,
and (4) any other relevant factors.” Id.
{¶ 10} A sentencing court is not required to use specific language or make specific
findings to demonstrate that it considered the applicable sentencing criteria under R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12. See State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793
(2000).
{¶ 11} At the sentencing hearing in this case, the trial court elaborated on the
criteria it considered, as follows:
The defendant having been convicted of the offense of aggravated
robbery, in violation of Revised Code Section 2911.01(A)(1) and (C), a
felony of the first degree, the Court having conducted a hearing pursuant
to 2929.19, having afforded the defendant and counsel rights to make
statements pursuant to Criminal Rule 32(A)(1), as well as having
considered the principles and purposes of sentencing set forth in 2929.11,
it will be the order of the Court the defendant be sentenced to the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections for a period of six years, until
released according to law, and is ordered to pay the costs of prosecution.
4.
{¶ 12} Additionally, the May 15, 2018 sentencing journal entry states: “The court
has considered the record, oral statements, any victim impact statement and presentence
report prepared, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11,
and has balanced the seriousness, recidivism and other relevant factors under R.C.
2929.12.”
{¶ 13} Based on the statements made at sentencing and in the sentencing entry, we
hold the trial court considered the relevant sentencing criteria and complied with R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12. Appellant fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that the
record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that his
sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken.
Conclusion
{¶ 15} The May 15, 2018 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas
is affirmed. 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.
5.
State v. Green
C.A. No. L-18-1065
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, P.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.
State v. Green
Combined Opinion