[Cite as State v. Daniels, 2024-Ohio-1095.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 2023CA00065
JEREMY DANIELS :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 22CR00320
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 22, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JENNY WELLS TODD W. BARSTOW
Prosecuting Attorney 261 Johnston Road, Suite 204
BY: KENNETH W. OSWALT Columbus, OH 43230
Assistant Prosecutor
20 S. Second Street, 4th Floor
Newark, OH 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jeremy J. Daniels [Daniels] appeals his convictions
and sentences after a negotiated guilty plea in the Licking County Court of Common
Pleas.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On July 14, 2022, Daniels was indicted for one count of Unlawful Sexual
Conduct with a minor, thirteen years of age or older, but less than sixteen years of age,
a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A) and two counts of Pandering
Obscenity involving a minor, felonies of the second degree in violation of R.C.
2907.321(A)(1).
{¶3} On August 10, 2023, Daniels filed a notice of his intention to enter guilty
pleas. [Docket Entry No. 84]. On September 8, 2023, Daniels filed a written “Entry of
Guilty Plea,” and with his attorney, appeared before the trial judge for a change of plea
and sentencing. A presentence investigation report was prepared prior to the scheduled
court appearance. T., Change of Plea and Sentencing, Sept. 8, 2023 at 17.
{¶4} After being advised of his constitutional and nonconstitutional rights by the
trial judge, Daniels entered pleas of guilty to the charges set forth in the indictment. The
prosecutor's recitation of the facts revealed that in January of 2022, the Pataskala Police
Department was notified that M.A., a fourteen-year-old child, was involved in a sexual
relationship with Daniels, who was then 35 years old. Subsequent investigation revealed
that M.A. had sent Daniels nude pictures and videos depicting her engaging in sexual
activity via a cell phone. Daniels admitted the nature of the sexual relationship in a
recorded conversation with M.A.’ s mother. Id. at 14-15.
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 3
{¶5} Prior to sentencing, the trial judge heard from M.A. who provided a lengthy
and detailed rendition of the horrors Daniels inflicted upon her. M.A. told the judge that
Daniels pretended to be nineteen years old when the two met in an online chatroom. T.,
Change of Plea and Sentencing, Sept. 8, 2023 at 23-31. The trial judge heard that Daniels
contacted M.A. while in jail. Daniels further cut-off his ankle monitor, fled and remained
at large from November 2, 2023 until his arrest in Chicago, Il. on May 19, 2023. The trial
judge also heard from M.A.’s mother who detailed the ordeals effect on the family. T.,
Change of Plea and Sentencing, Sept. 8, 2023 at 21-23.
{¶6} The state recommended a sentence of 8 years. After hearing from all
parties, the trial court imposed a sentence of 8 years. Id. at 18. As part of the sentence,
the trial court sentenced Daniels to an indefinite prison term on the charges pursuant to
Revised Code section 2967.271, for an indeterminate sentence of 8 to 12 years. Id. at 41.
The trial court filed its sentencing entry on September 8, 2023.
Assignment of Error
{¶7} Daniels raises one Assignment of Error,
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
SENTENCING HER IN CONTRAVENTION OF OHIO'S SENTENCING STATUTES.”
Law and Analysis
{¶9} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.
2953.08. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶22;
State v. Howell, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00004, 2015-Ohio-4049, ¶31. R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence
and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 4
does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D),
2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
See, also, State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.2d 659, ¶28.
{¶10} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the
syllabus. See also, In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985).
“Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be clear and convincing, a
reviewing court will examine the record to determine whether the trier of facts had
sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof.” Cross, 161 Ohio St.
at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118.
{¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the issue of “whether a sentence is
“contrary to law” under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) when an appellate court finds that the
record does not support a sentence with respect to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. State v.
Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. Although a court imposing
a felony sentence must consider the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11
and the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12, “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12
requires [the] court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Id. at ¶ 20, citing
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669, 951 N.E.2d 381, ¶ 31, and State
v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000). 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, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶39. The Ohio
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 5
Supreme Court further elucidated in State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397, 2021-Ohio-3531,
186 N.E.3d 784, ¶10, “R.C. 2953.08, as amended, precludes second-guessing a
sentence imposed by the trial court based on its weighing of the considerations in R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12.”
{¶12} “‘Otherwise contrary to law’ means “‘in violation of statute or legal
regulations at a given time.’” Jones at ¶ 34 quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 328 (6th Ed.
1990). Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or
considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law. Claims that raise these types of issues are
therefore reviewable. State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d
68, ¶22.
Purposes and Principles of Felony Sentencing - R.C. 2929.11
{¶13} R.C. 2929.11(A) governs the purposes and principles of felony sentencing
and provides that a sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to
achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which are (1) to protect the
public from future crime by the offender and others, and (2) to punish the offender using
the minimum sanctions that the court determines will accomplish those purposes. In order
to achieve these purposes and principles, the trial court must 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. R.C. 2929.11(A). Additionally, the sentence “must be commensurate with, and
not demeaning to, the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact on the victims
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 6
and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by similar offenders.” R.C.
2929.11(B).
Seriousness and Recidivism - R.C. 2929.12
{¶14} R.C. 2929.12 is a guidance statute that sets forth the seriousness and
recidivism criteria that a trial court “shall consider” in fashioning a felony sentence.
Subsections (B) and (C) establish the factors indicating whether the offender’s conduct is
more serious or less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense. These factors
include the physical or mental injury suffered by the victim due to the age of the victim;
the physical, psychological, or economic harm suffered by the victim; whether the
offender’s relationship with the victim facilitated the offense; the defendant’s prior criminal
record; whether the defendant was under a court sanction at the time of the offense;
whether the defendant shows any remorse; and any other relevant factors. R.C.
2929.12(B). The court must also consider any factors indicating the offender’s conduct is
less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense, including any mitigating
factors. R.C. 2929.12(C). Subsections (D) and (E) contain the factors bearing on whether
the offender is likely or not likely to commit future crimes.
Issue for Appellate Review: Whether Daniels’ sentence was imposed based on
impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside those that are
contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
{¶15} In the instant case, the record demonstrates the trial court reviewed Daniels
PSI and listened to the statements from the prosecutor, the victim’s mother, the victim,
defense counsel, and Daniels. In open court and in its sentencing entry, the trial court
indicated it considered the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.11,
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 7
2929.12 and R.C. 2929.13. The trial court sentenced Daniels to a sentence that is
permissible for the felonies that he had pled guilty, and he has not demonstrated that the
trial court imposed the sentence “based on impermissible considerations—i.e.,
considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”
State v. Cottrell, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0061, 2023-Ohio-1391, ¶ 21, citing
Bryant, supra.
{¶16} Daniels argument that his sentence violates the general assembly’s intent
to minimize the unnecessary burden on state and local government resources is not well
taken. In State v. Ober, Second Dist. No. 97CA0019, 1997 WL 624811 (Oct. 10, 1997),
the Court considered this same issue. The Ober court concluded, “[a]lthough resource
burdens may be a relevant sentencing criterion, R.C. 2929.13(D) does not require trial
courts to elevate resource conservation above the seriousness and recidivism factors.”
Id.
{¶17} Several other appellate courts, including our own, considering these issues
have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., State v. Hyland, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2005–05–103, 2006–Ohio–339, ¶ 32; State v. Brooks, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 97APA–
11–1543, 1998 WL 514111 (Aug. 18, 1998); State v. Stewart, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
74691, 1999 WL 126940 (Mar. 4, 1999); State v. Fox, 3rd Dist. Wyandot No. 16–2000–
17, 2001 WL 218433 (Mar. 6, 2001); State v. Banks, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 12-COA-045,
2013-Ohio-2847, ¶27; State v. Miller, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 04–COA–003, 2004–Ohio–
4636. We agree with the reasoning of the Ober court and other courts considering this
issue and find no merit to Daniels argument.
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 8
{¶18} Likewise, Daniels appeal to this Court to adopt Justice Donnelly’s dissenting
opinion in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649 is
unconvincing. [Appellant’s brief at 3]. Article IV of the Ohio Constitution designates a
system of “superior” and “inferior” courts, each possessing a distinct function. The
Constitution does not grant to a court of common pleas or to a court of appeals jurisdiction
to reverse or vacate a decision made by a superior court. See, State ex rel. Cordray v.
Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229, 2009-Ohio-4986, 915 N.E.2d 666, ¶32; State, ex rel. Potain
v. Mathews, 59 Ohio St.2d 29, 32, 391 N.E.2d 343, 345 (1979); R.C. 2305.01. Unless
“anarchy [is] to prevail within [our] judicial system, a precedent of [a higher court] must be
followed by the lower [] courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may
think it to be.” Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 375, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982).
{¶19} Upon review, we find that the trial court’s sentencing complies with
applicable rules and sentencing statutes. While Daniels may disagree with the weight
given to these factors by the trial judge, his sentence was within the applicable statutory
range and not based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall
outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; therefore, we have no
basis for concluding that it is contrary to law. State v. Elkins, 5th Dist. Knox No.
22CA000021, 2023-Ohio-1358, ¶ 22.
{¶20} Daniels sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
Licking County, Case No. 2023CA00065 9
{¶21} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Baldwin, J., concur