State v. Bigler

2025 Ohio 887

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 17, 2025
• Docket: 9-24-29
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Bigler, 2025-Ohio-887.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 9-24-29 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

MARIE NICOLE BIGLER, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court General Division Trial Court No. 23-CR-460

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: March 17, 2025

APPEARANCES:

W. Joseph Edwards for Appellant

Allison M. Kesler for Appellee Case No. 9-24-29

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Marie Bigler (“Bigler”) brings this appeal from the

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County sentencing her to

maximum, consecutive sentences in two different cases. On appeal Bigler claims

that the trial court erred by sentencing her to the maximum sentences in both cases

instead of a lesser sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is

affirmed.

{¶2} This Court first notes that Bigler argues the sentence imposed in trial

court case number 23 CR 398 should not have been a maximum sentence. However,

no notice of appeal was filed in that case and that sentence is not subject to our

review. Thus, we review only the sentence imposed in trial court case number 23

CR 460.

{¶3} On May 6, Bigler entered pleas of guilty to one count of engaging in a

pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32(B)(1), a felony of the first

degree and one count of possession of cocaine in violation of 2925.11(A), (C)(4)(c),

a felony of the third degree. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State dismissed

four other felonies of the first degree. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing

on May 31, 2024. The trial court imposed a prison sentence of 11-16.5 years for the

first degree felony and 36 months for the third degree felony. Both of these

sentences are maximum sentences. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(b), (A)(3)(b). The trial

-2- Case No. 9-24-29

court ordered that the sentences should be served consecutive to each other as well

as consecutive to the sentence imposed in case number 23 CR 398 for an aggregate

prison term of 15-20.5 years. Bigler appeals from this judgment and raises one

assignment of error.

The trial court erred when it sentenced [Bigler] to the maximum prison sentence for both cases instead of a lesser sentence.

{¶4} Bigler’s sole assignment of error claims that the trial court erred by

imposing the maximum sentence. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court

will only reverse a sentence “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, 2016-Ohio-1002.

“[A]n appellate court’s authority to modify or vacate a sentence is limited to

situations in which it concludes that the record does not support the sentencing

court’s findings under certain specified statutes, not including R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 38. “A sentence imposed within the

statutory range is not contrary to law as long as the trial court considered the

purposes and principles of felony sentencing contained in R.C. 2929.11 and the

sentencing factors contained in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Paxson, 2024-Ohio-2680, ¶

7 (3d Dist.) quoting State v. Lane, 2022-Ohio-3775, ¶ 85 (3d Dist.).

{¶5} Bigler does not argue that the trial court did not consider the purposes

and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 or the sentencing

-3- Case No. 9-24-29

factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. A review of the record shows that the trial court

did consider all it was required to consider. Instead, Bigler disagrees with the

conclusions the trial court reached when imposing the sentence. “This Court,

pursuant to Jones, lacks the authority to review the record to consider how a trial

court has applied the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C.

2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” Paxson, at ¶ 9. As

we cannot review how the trial court uses the evidence before it when considering

the statutory factors, we do not find the sentence contrary to law. The assignment

of error is overruled.

{¶6} Having found no errors prejudicial to appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County

is affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

-4-