FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2015 12 3949(A)
L. JONES Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. TEODOSIO, JUDGE.
Appellant, Curtis Burden, appeals from his sentence in the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
Mr. Burden pled guilty in the Summit County Court of Common
Pleas to pandering obscenity involving a minor, a felony of
the second degree, for viewing and disseminating graphic
child pornography online, including the sexual assault and
torture of children. He also created an online chat room to
share these pictures and videos. The trial court sentenced
him to six years in prison.
Mr. Burden now appeals from his sentence and raises two
assignments of error for this Court's review.
OF ERROR ONE
SIX-YEAR PRISON TERM RENDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS CONTRARY
TO LAW AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD IN VIOLATION OF RC.
[2929.11] AND RC. [2929.12]. 
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Burden argues that his
sentence is contrary to law, not supported by the record, and
must be vacated. We disagree.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held 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." State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,
2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; RC. 2953.08(G)(2). "Clear and
convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which
will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief
or conviction as to the allegations sought to be
established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St.
469, 477 (1954).
Mr. Burden argues that the trial court only briefly mentioned
weighing the sentencing factors and seemed to indicate the
sentence was based on an aggravating factor making this the
worst form of the offense. He also argues that the court did
not mention any other sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 or
R.C. 2929.12, including mitigating factors that would ...