Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Sandusky
Court No. 18CR617
Timothy Braun, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Joseph H. Gerber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
H. Ellis, III, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Background and Procedure
1} On May 18, 2018, appellant John B. Stacy
furnished 17-year old A.R. with Oxycodone and Xanax pills,
which A.R. then crushed and snorted with appellant. At the
time, appellant was 30 years old and lived in a camper near
the home of A.R.'s father, on the same property.
Appellant was subsequently charged with two counts of
corrupting another with drugs, in violation of R.C.
2925.02(A)(4)(a), felonies of the second degree.
2} On September 21, 2018, appellant entered a guilty
plea to Count 2 of the indictment, with the state agreeing to
dismiss Count 1 at sentencing. The Court informed appellant,
prior to his plea, that Count 2 carried a prison term of 2 to
8 years, with a presumption for incarceration for the
second-degree felony offense. After accepting appellant's
plea and finding him guilty, the trial court continued the
matter for a presentence investigation report.
3} On November 12, 2018, the trial court held a
sentencing hearing. After considering the presentence
investigation report, the record, a statement from the
victim's father, and the statements of the appellant and
the prosecutor, the trial court imposed a prison term of two
years. At the sentencing hearing, appellant acknowledged,
through his attorney, the presumption for a prison sentence
rather than community control for his offense.
4} Appellant now appeals his sentence, assigning the
following as error:
TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE
STATUTES IN SENTENCING THE APPELLANT.
5} Appellant challenges his prison sentence, arguing
a community control sanction would have better served the
purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, and that the trial
court failed to consider the sentencing factors under R.C.
2929.12. In response, appellee, the state of Ohio, notes that
appellant entered a guilty plea to a charge carrying a
presumption for a prison term, and therefore may not
challenge the two-year prison term as unlawful. Even if
appellant could raise this challenge, appellee argues that
the record supports the trial court's findings, as
articulated in the sentencing entry.
6} We review a felony sentence, not for abuse of
discretion, but pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(1). State v.
Knight, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1066, 2014-Ohio-2222,
¶ 15, citing State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425, ¶ 11. After review
of the record and any findings articulated in support of the
sentence, we may "increase, reduce, modify, or vacate
and remand a disputed sentence" if we find, by clear and
convincing evidence, either that "the record does not
support the trial court's findings" under R.C.
2929.13(B) or (D) or "the sentence is otherwise contrary
to law." Knight at ¶ 16, quoting R.C.
7} Appellant was charged with 2 counts of corrupting
another with drugs, in violation of R.C. ...