State v. Cathan

2022 Ohio 228

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 28, 2022
• Docket: WD-20-072 & WD-21-073
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cathan, 2022-Ohio-228.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-20-073 WD-21-072 Appellee Trial Court No. 2018CR0414 v.

Michael Cathan, II DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: January 28, 2022

*****

Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Sarah Haberland, for appellant.

***** ZMUDA, J.

{¶ 1} This consolidated matter is before the court on appeal of the sentence

imposed after a community control violation by the Wood County Court of Common

Pleas. The sole assignment of error asserts the trial court “abused its discretion failing to impose the minimum sanctions in accordance with R.C. 2929.11” based on the trial

court’s consideration of the factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

{¶ 2} The law governing appellate review of a trial court’s consideration of R.C.

2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing sentence is clear. As we have repeatedly noted, “R.C.

2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an ‘appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in

the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence

that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.’” See State v. Bowles,

2021-Ohio-4401, -- N.E.3d. -- ¶ 7 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242,

2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42; see also State v. Johnson, 6th Dist. Wood No.

WD-20-056, 2021-Ohio-2139, ¶ 14, citing State v. Orzechowski, 6th Dist. Wood No.

WD-20-029, 2021-Ohio-985, ¶10; State v. Woodmore, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1088,

2021-Ohio-1677, ¶ 17; State v. Buck, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-031, 2021-Ohio-1073,

¶7; State v. White, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-040, 2021-Ohio-987, ¶10. Such

challenges based on a trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, moreover,

may be summarily denied. Bowles at ¶ 8, citing State v. Toles, Slip Opinion 2021-Ohio-

3531, -- N.E.3d --, ¶ 1.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, based on the authority of Jones and Toles, we find the present

challenge is “subject to summary resolution as a matter of law.” Bowles at ¶ 9, citing

Toles at ¶ 11.

Judgment affirmed.

2. State of Ohio v. Michael Cathan, II WD-20-073, WD-21-072

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE CONCUR. ____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

3.