Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Sandusky
Court No. 18 CR 640
Timothy Braun, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Joseph H. Gerber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
H. Ellis, III, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
1} Appellant, Jacob E. Beckley, appeals the November
20, 2018 judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common
Pleas, sentencing him to 18 months in prison following his
conviction for two drug-related offenses. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
2} On June 15, 2018, Jacob E. Beckley was indicted
on one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a violation
of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(A); one count of tampering with
evidence, a violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1); and one count of
aggravated trafficking in drugs, a violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(1)(C)(1)(A). The charges in Counts 1 and 2 arose
from appellant's possession of, and attempt to conceal,
methamphetamine during his September 11, 2017 arrest on an
outstanding warrant for unrelated charges. The charges in
Count 3 arose from appellant's October 30, 2017 sale of
methamphetamine to a confidential informant.
3} On September 24, 2018, appellant entered a plea
of guilty to aggravated possession of drugs (Count 1) and
aggravated drug trafficking (Count 3). At his November 20,
2018 sentencing, the trial court sentenced appellant to 12
months in prison on Count 1 and 18 months in prison on Count
3. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Count 2
was dismissed and is not relevant to this appeal. The trial
court memorialized its sentence in a November 20, 2018 entry
from which appellant timely appealed and assigns a single
error for our review:
trial court erred by failing to comply with applicable
statutes in sentencing the appellant.
Law and Analysis
4} Appellant challenges the trial court's
judgment based on its alleged failure to consider the purpose
of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and its
alleged failure to consider the seriousness and recidivism
factors established in R.C. 2929.12 in determining
appellant's sentence. We review felony sentences under
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Goings, 6th Dist. Lucas
No. L-13-1103, 2014-Ohio-2322, ¶ 20. We may increase,
modify, or vacate and remand a judgment only if we clearly
and convincingly find either of the following: "(a) the
record does not support the sentencing court's findings
under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division
(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of
section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is
relevant" or "(b) the sentence is otherwise
contrary to law." State v. Yeager, 6th Dist.
Sandusky No. S-15-025, 2016-Ohio-4759, ¶ 7, citing R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). Appellant's arguments suggest the trial
court's judgment was contrary to law and therefore
subject to our review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). Appellant
identifies three separate grounds on which he alleges his
sentence was contrary to law:
1. The trial court failed to consider the purposes of felony
sentencing in accordance with R.C. 2929.11;
2. The trial court failed to consider the aggravating and
recidivism factors established in R.C. 2929.12 prior to
imposing sentence; and
3. The trial court failed to identify factual findings
supporting imposing the maximum ...