[Cite as State v. Evege, 2017-Ohio-907.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 28242
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
JABRIEL R. EVEGE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 2015 04 1215
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 15, 2017
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jabriel Evege, appeals his sentence for aggravated robbery
from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court
affirms.
I.
{¶2} A grand jury indicted Mr. Evege on three counts of aggravated robbery with
accompanying firearm specifications. Mr. Evege ultimately pleaded guilty to one count, and the
remaining counts were dismissed. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard statements
from Mr. Evege and two victims. The transcript from the hearing indicates that the trial court
also considered victim impact statements, a letter from Mr. Evege, and a presentence
investigation report.
{¶3} The trial court sentenced Mr. Evege to ten years of imprisonment for aggravated
robbery and three years for the firearm specification. The trial court ordered the sentences to run
2
consecutively for a total prison term of 13 years. Mr. Evege now appeals, raising one
assignment of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING AN UNREASONABLE
SENTENCE UPON JABRIEL EVEGE, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Evege argues that the trial court committed
plain error when it sentenced him to a near-maximum sentence of ten years for aggravated
robbery, his second felony offense. In this regard, he argues that although the trial court
mentioned that it considered the statutory sentencing factors during his sentencing, there was no
meaningful discussion of those factors, nor was there any indication that the trial court
considered the merits of imposing a less severe sentence. He, therefore, concludes that the trial
court’s sentence was unjustifiably excessive and violated his constitutional rights.
{¶5} As previously noted, the transcript from the sentencing hearing expressly
indicates that the trial court considered a presentence investigation report when fashioning its
sentence. That report, however, is not contained in the record before this Court. We note that
“[t]he obligation to ensure that the record on appeal contains all matters necessary to allow this
Court to resolve the issues on appeal lies with the appellant.” State v. Daniel, 9th Dist. Summit
No. 27390, 2014-Ohio-5112, ¶ 5, citing App.R. 9. “We have consistently held that, where the
appellant has failed to provide a complete record to facilitate appellate review, this Court is
compelled to presume regularity in the proceedings below and affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
Id.
3
{¶6} In light of the absence of the presentence investigation report from the record
before us, this Court must presume regularity in the trial court’s sentencing of Mr. Evege. Id.;
see also State v. Taylor, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 13CA010366, 13CA010367, 13CA010368,
13CA010369, 2014-Ohio-2001, ¶ 6-7 (presuming regularity in the sentencing proceedings and
affirming the trial court’s sentence because the record did not contain the presentence
investigation report). Accordingly, his assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶7} Mr. Evege’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
4
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JEREMY A. VEILLETTE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prsoecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
State v. Evege
Combined Opinion