Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-18-625465-A
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Kevin E. Bringman, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
A Miranda, for appellant
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
EILEEN KILBANE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
1} Defendant-appellant, Stacy Sheree Reed
("Reed"), appeals her sentence for felonious
assault and burglary. For the reasons set forth below, we
2} In March 2018, Reed was charged with one count
each of aggravated burglary, attempted murder, and felonious
assault. In October 2018, under a plea agreement with the
state, Reed pled guilty to an amended charge of burglary, a
third-degree felony, and to felonious assault, a
second-degree felony. In exchange for the pleas, the state
dismissed the charge of attempted murder. Reed agreed to have
no contact with the victim and to pay restitution.
3} In December 2018, the trial court held a
sentencing hearing. The prosecutor, defense counsel, the
victim and her fiancée, and Reed, each addressed the
court. The trial court sentenced Reed to an aggregate prison
term of four years, comprised of concurrent terms of four
years on the felonious assault charge and two years on the
4} Reed now appeals, assigning the following single
error for review.
sentence is contrary to law and not supported by the record.
5} In her sole assignment of error, Reed argues her
sentence was contrary to law and not supported by the record.
6} Our review of felony sentences is governed by
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), "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, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1.
A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls
outside the statutory range for the particular degree of
offense, or (2) the trial court failed to consider the
purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.
State v. Hinton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102710,
2015-Ohio-4907, ¶ 10, citing State v. Smith,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100206, 2014-Ohio-1520, ¶ 13.
7} In the instant matter, Reed argues it is unclear
whether the trial court considered the purposes and
principles of sentencing under RC. 2929.11, because it failed
to mention it in the sentencing entry.
8} R.C. 2929.11(A) establishes that the overriding
purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from
future crime by the offender and to punish the offender using
the minimum sanctions that the court determines will
accomplish those purposes. While sentencing courts have
discretion to determine how best to comply with these
purposes, RC. 2929.12 provides a list of factors that courts
must consider in felony sentencing. Courts must carefully
consider these purposes and factors, but "it is not
necessary for the trial court to articulate its consideration
of each individual factor as long as it is evident from the
record that the principles of sentencing were