Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Beckley

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Sandusky

August 2, 2019

State of Ohio Appellee
v.
Jacob E. Beckley Appellant

          Trial Court No. 18 CR 640

          Timothy Braun, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph H. Gerber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

          James H. Ellis, III, for appellant.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

          ZMUDA, J.

         {¶ 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.

         I. Background

         {¶ 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:

         The trial court erred by failing to comply with applicable statutes in sentencing the appellant.

         II. 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.