Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio
Case No. 16 CR 43
Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Daniel P. Fry Belmont County
Prosecutor Atty. Kevin Flanagan Assistant Prosecuting
Defendant-Appellant: Atty. John M. Jurco
Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Mary DeGenaro
Appellant Brian L. Williamson appeals an April 25, 2016
Belmont County Common Pleas Court judgment entry. Appellant
argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him to
maximum and consecutive sentences. For the reasons provided,
Appellant's arguments regarding the trial court's
imposition of maximum sentences is without merit. However,
the court failed to make the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)
findings before imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly,
Appellant's convictions are affirmed. Appellant's
sentence is affirmed in part and vacated in part. The matter
is remanded for the limited purpose of addressing consecutive
and Procedural History
Appellant was arrested after he sold prescription drugs to a
confidential informant. On January 5, 2016, Appellant was
indicted on two counts of trafficking drugs, a felony of the
fifth degree in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A), (C)(2)(a).
Appellant and the state entered into a Crim.R. 11 plea
agreement and Appellant agreed to plead guilty to both counts
as charged. On April 11, 2016, the trial court conducted a
plea hearing and accepted his plea.
On April 25, 2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
twelve months of incarceration per count to run
consecutively, for an aggregate total of twenty-four months.
The court also suspended his driver's license for one
year and ordered him to pay $105 in restitution. The trial
court credited Appellant with 69 days of jail time served.
Appellant solely appeals his sentence.
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING THE APPELLANT TO MAXIMUM
Appellant challenges the maximum and consecutive nature of
his sentence. He argues that the trial court improperly
sentenced him to maximum sentences when the court
acknowledged that none of the R.C. 2929.12(B) factors
applied. Additionally, he argues that he was "solicited
and enticed" to sell drugs by the informant and possibly
has an entrapment defense. The state did not file a response
An appellate court is permitted to review a felony sentence
to determine if it is contrary to law. State v.
Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d
1231, ¶ 23. Further, "an appellate court may vacate
or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly
contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the record does not support the
When determining a sentence, a trial court must consider the
purposes and principles of sentencing in accordance with R.C.
2929.11, the seriousness and recidivism factors within R.C.