State v. Carpenter

2025 Ohio 2561

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 1-24-64
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Carpenter, 2025-Ohio-2561.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 1-24-64 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

AMBER L. CARPENTER, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR2023 0123

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: July 21, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Chima R. Ekeh for Appellant

John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee Case No. 1-24-64

WALDICK, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Amber Carpenter (“Carpenter”), appeals the

judgment of conviction and sentence entered against her in the Allen County Court

of Common Pleas on September 30, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, we

affirm.

Procedural History

{¶2} This case originated on April 13, 2023, when an Allen County grand

jury returned a three-count indictment against Carpenter, charging her as follows:

Count 1 – Felonious Assault, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(1); Count 2 – Endangering Children, a second-degree felony in

violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) and (E)(2)(d); and Count 3 – Endangering Children,

a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) and (E)(2)(c).

{¶3} On September 22, 2023, Carpenter filed a written plea of not guilty to

the indictment. Eleven months of pretrial proceedings then ensued.

{¶4} On August 26, 2024, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,

Carpenter entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Count 3 of the indictment. In

exchange for that guilty plea, the prosecution agreed to a dismissal of Counts 1 and

2. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation.

{¶5} On September 30, 2024, a sentencing hearing was held and Carpenter

was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison.

-2- Case No. 1-24-64

{¶6} On October 16, 2024, Carpenter filed the instant appeal, in which she

raises two assignments of error for our review.

First Assignment of Error

Defendant-appellant’s plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence of thirty-six months in prison.

{¶7} In the first assignment of error, Carpenter argues that her guilty plea

was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

{¶8} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be

made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525,

527 (1996). If a guilty plea was not a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary one, the

enforcement of the plea is unconstitutional. State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10.

A guilty plea that is coerced or induced by promises or threats renders the plea

involuntary. State v. Lawson, 2018-Ohio-4922, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.).

{¶9} In Ohio, Crim.R. 11 sets forth the procedures to be followed by a trial

court when accepting a guilty plea, and “‘ensures an adequate record on review by

requiring the trial court to personally inform the defendant of his rights and the

consequences of his plea and determine if the plea is understandingly and

voluntarily made.’” Dangler, supra, at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d

-3- Case No. 1-24-64

163, 168 (1975). In reviewing whether a guilty plea satisfied the constitutional

requirements, an appellate court looks to whether the dialogue between the trial

court and the defendant demonstrates that the defendant understood the

consequences of the plea. Dangler, at ¶ 12.

{¶10} Crim.R. 11(C) applies specifically to a trial court’s acceptance of

guilty pleas in felony cases and provides in relevant part as follows:

(2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally * * * and doing all of the following:

(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.

(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.

(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.

{¶11} In the instant case, Carpenter concedes that the trial court fully

complied with the requirements of Crim.R.11(C) prior to accepting the plea of

guilty. However, Carpenter asserts that “pre-indictment delay of over three years,

-4- Case No. 1-24-64

pre-trial incarceration of 387 days, denial of bond modifications, and her emotional

state of being pregnant with twins in jail” had a coercive effect on her decision to

plead guilty and therefore rendered her plea involuntary.

{¶12} Upon reviewing the record before us and the reasons cited by

Carpenter in support of her claim that her guilty plea was involuntary, we first note

that Carpenter fails to articulate how the amount of time between the commission

of the offense and her subsequent indictment had any impact on her decision to

plead guilty after the indicted case had been actively pending for nearly a year.

Carpenter also suggests that her guilty plea was coerced due to her being pregnant

while the case was pending, but the record reflects that Carpenter was not pregnant

at the time she pled guilty, having given birth several months prior to entering her

negotiated plea of guilty. While Carpenter also claims that her pretrial incarceration

and inability to post bond had a coercive effect on her decision to plead guilty, the

record reflects that no promises were made to Carpenter regarding bail at the time

of her plea. Additionally, the written plea agreement signed by Carpenter at the

time of her guilty plea reflects her acknowledgement that her change of plea was

not being made under threat or coercion and that no promises had been made to her

relating to entering the guilty plea.

{¶13} We also consider the voluntariness of Carpenter’s guilty plea in light

of the record of the change of plea hearing held on August 26, 2024. The transcript

of that hearing reflects that the trial court fully complied with the requirements of

-5- Case No. 1-24-64

Crim.R. 11 and advised Carpenter of the rights she was waiving by pleading guilty

and the consequences of her guilty plea. The record of the change of plea hearing

also reflects no hesitation on Carpenter’s part in entering the guilty plea and, further,

indicates that she was specifically asked by the trial court whether the guilty plea

was the result of any promises or threats having been made against her, which she

answered in the negative. The trial court also asked Carpenter if she felt that she

was being coerced or forced into pleading guilty against her will, and Carpenter said

she did not. Finally, we note that Carpenter was represented by counsel at all times

during the pendency of the case, and that the negotiated plea of guilty ultimately

entered by Carpenter was highly favorable to her.

{¶14} In summary, based on our application of the relevant law to the facts

of the record before us, we find nothing to demonstrate that Carpenter’s negotiated

plea of guilty was involuntary as the result of coercion.

{¶15} The first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶16} In the second assignment of error, Carpenter contends that the trial

court erred in imposing the maximum prison term of thirty-six months, arguing that

the trial court failed to adequately consider the purposes and principles of felony

sentencing and that the sentence is excessive.

{¶17} The applicable standard of review here is whether the sentence is

clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 10;

-6- Case No. 1-24-64

R.C. 2953.08. The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited sentencing review by

holding that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not provide a basis for an appellate court

to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported

by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶

39. A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory

range. State v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-1768, ¶ 9 (3d Dist). “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. Id., citing State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-

76, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.).

{¶18} With regard to the sentence imposed in the instant case, Carpenter was

convicted of Endangering Children, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2919.22(A) and (E)(2)(c). Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b), the authorized range

of prison sentences for a third-degree felony of the type at issue here is a definite

prison term of nine, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six months.

Thus, the thirty-six month prison term imposed by the trial court in this case was

within the statutory range.

{¶19} Statements by the trial court made on the record at the time of

sentencing reflect that the court had considered the statutory factors relating to

sentencing. The judgment entry of sentencing also reflects that the trial court

considered “the principles and purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11, the

-7- Case No. 1-24-64

seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12, and all other relevant sentencing

statutes”, as well as all statements in mitigation and other statements of the parties,

the presentence investigation, and the statement from the victim’s representative.

(Docket No. 80).

{¶20} Carpenter’s conviction in this matter relates to injuries suffered by her

infant daughter as a result of Carpenter creating “a substantial risk to the health or

safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.” R.C.

2919.22(A). As a result of Carpenter having violated her duty of care, protection,

or support, her one-month old daughter, “R.B.”, suffered a skull fracture, as well as

bruising on several locations of her body, including her face, back, and legs. At

sentencing, the prosecution noted that its medical expert in the case, Dr. Schlievert,

opined that the injuries sustained by the infant amounted to a serious degree of

physical harm, involving severe pain and a significant risk of brain injury that could

have been permanently disabling or fatal. The victim’s grandmother, who

subsequently adopted R.B., indicated at sentencing that the child was diagnosed

with developmental delay as a result of the head injury, that she required ongoing

therapy, and still faced many struggles on a daily basis.

{¶21} As detailed on the record at the sentencing hearing, the trial court took

all relevant factors into account in formulating a sentence in this case, including

Carpenter’s prior criminal history, the fact she had not responded favorably to

sanctions previously imposed, the fact she demonstrated a pattern of substance

-8- Case No. 1-24-64

abuse related to the offense at issue, an ORAS score of 16 which indicates a low to

moderate risk of reoffending, and the fact that Carpenter showed remorse for her

offense. Upon consideration of those facts, the trial court found that Carpenter was

not amenable to community control and that community control would be

demeaning to the seriousness of Carpenter’s criminal conduct and the impact of that

conduct upon the victim. Based primarily on the seriousness of the harm suffered

by Carpenter’s infant daughter, the trial court then imposed a non-mandatory

sentence of thirty-six months in prison, noting that Carpenter would be eligible to

file for judicial release after serving six months of that sentence.

{¶22} In summary, the record before us confirms that the trial court

considered the overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11

and the statutory factors relating to seriousness and recidivism set forth in R.C.

2929.12. Application of those statutory guidelines to the facts of the instant case

supports the conclusion that Carpenter was not amenable to community control.

Further, as the trial court gave consideration to the applicable sentencing factors and

because the sentence imposed is within the statutory range of sentencing options,

the maximum prison sentence in this case is supported by the record and is not

clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

{¶23} The second assignment of error is overruled.

-9- Case No. 1-24-64

Conclusion

{¶24} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant, Amber

Carpenter, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Allen County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

-10- Case No. 1-24-64

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error

are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

Juergen A. Waldick, Judge

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

Mark C. Miller, Judge

DATED: /jlm

-11-