[Cite as State v. Cornett, 2024-Ohio-1238.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT AUGLAIZE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2-23-12 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DANNY JAY CORNETT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2023-CR-74
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: April 1, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Nick A. Catania for Appellant
Benjamin R. Elder for Appellee Case No. 2-23-12
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Danny Jay Cornett (“Cornett”), appeals the
October 30, 2023 judgment entry of sentence of the Auglaize County Court of
Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On May 4, 2023, the Auglaize County Grand Jury indicted Cornett on
a single count of the illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of specified
governmental facility in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a third-degree felony.
Cornett appeared for arraignment on May 31, 2023 and entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} On September 11, 2023, Cornett withdrew his plea of not guilty and
entered a plea of guilty, under a negotiated-plea agreement, to the sole count of the
indictment. In exchange for Cornett’s change of plea, the State agreed to a joint-
sentencing recommendation. The trial court accepted Cornett’s guilty plea, found
him guilty, and ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”).
{¶4} On October 27, 2023, the trial court sentenced Cornett to 30 months in
prison.1 (Doc. No. 67).
{¶5} On November 6, 2023, Cornett filed a notice of appeal. He raises one
assignment of error.
1 The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on October 30, 2023.
-2- Case No. 2-23-12
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court’s Sentence of the Defendant-Appellant to a Sentence Totaling (30) Months, Being Above the Joint Recommended Sentence Under ORC 2953.08(D)(1) of Community Control is a Clear and Convincing Violation of the Law in Failing to Properly Consider and Apply the Felony Sentencing Guidelines Set Forth in Ohio Revised Code, Section 2929.11 and 2929.12.
{¶6} In his assignment of error, Cornett challenges the prison sentence
imposed by the trial court. Specifically, Cornett argues that his prison sentence is
contrary to law because there is clear and convincing evidence that the trial court’s
imposition of a prison sentence does not comport with the sentencing guidelines
under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.
Standard of Review
{¶7} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence
“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,
¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id.
at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the
syllabus.
-3- Case No. 2-23-12
Analysis
{¶8} On appeal, Cornett contends that the felony-sentencing guidelines
under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 weigh in favor of imposing the parties’ joint-
sentencing recommendation of community control rather than a 30-month prison
sentence. However, when imposing a sentence, “‘trial courts have full discretion to
impose any sentence within the statutory range.’” State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Seneca
No. 13-15-17, 2015-Ohio-4225, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Noble, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-
14-06, 2014-Ohio-5485, ¶ 9. Here, as a third-degree felony, the illegal conveyance
of drugs of abuse onto grounds of specified governmental facility carries a possible
sentence of 9- to 36-months imprisonment. R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), 2929.13(C), and
2929.14(A)(3)(b). Because the trial court sentenced Cornett to 30 months in prison,
the trial court’s sentence is within the statutory range. “[A] sentence imposed within
the statutory range is ‘presumptively valid’ if the [trial] court considered applicable
sentencing factors.” State v. Maggette, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-06, 2016-Ohio-
5554, ¶ 31, quoting State v. Collier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95572, 2011-Ohio-
2791, ¶ 15.
As it relates to this case, trial courts must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
R.C. 2929.11 provides, in its relevant part, that the
overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those
-4- Case No. 2-23-12
purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.
R.C. 2929.11(A). “In advancing these purposes, sentencing courts are instructed to
‘consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others
from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim
of the offense, the public, or both.’” Smith at ¶ 10, quoting R.C. 2929.11(A).
“Meanwhile, R.C. 2929.11(B) states that felony sentences must be ‘commensurate
with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact
upon the victim’ and also be consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.”
Id., quoting R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶9} “In accordance with these principles, the trial court must consider the
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12(B)-(E) relating to the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct and the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism.” Id., citing R.C.
2929.12(A). “‘A sentencing court has broad discretion to determine the relative
weight to assign the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting State
v. Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524, 2011-Ohio-5032, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.).
{¶10} “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any
specific factual findings on the record.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-
Ohio-6729, ¶ 20. “A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory
factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing
statutes.” Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32.
-5- Case No. 2-23-12
{¶11} Thus, when imposing a felony sentence, “it is ‘[t]he trial court [that]
determines the weight afforded to any particular statutory factors, mitigating
grounds, or other relevant circumstances.’” State v. McKennelly, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2017-04-055, 2017-Ohio-9092, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Steger, 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2016-03-059, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18, citing State v. Stubbs, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 13AP-810, 2014-Ohio-3696, ¶ 16. “The fact that the trial court chose
to weigh various sentencing factors differently than how appellant would have
weighed them does not mean the trial court erred in imposing appellant’s sentence.”
Id.
{¶12} As Cornett concedes, the trial court considered the principles and
purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12 at Cornett’s sentencing hearing and in its
sentencing entry. (Oct. 27, 2023 Tr. at 6); (Doc. No. 67). Nevertheless, Cornett
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Cornett, 2024-Ohio-1238.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT AUGLAIZE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2-23-12 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DANNY JAY CORNETT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2023-CR-74
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: April 1, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Nick A. Catania for Appellant
Benjamin R. Elder for Appellee Case No. 2-23-12
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Danny Jay Cornett (“Cornett”), appeals the
October 30, 2023 judgment entry of sentence of the Auglaize County Court of
Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On May 4, 2023, the Auglaize County Grand Jury indicted Cornett on
a single count of the illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of specified
governmental facility in violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a third-degree felony.
Cornett appeared for arraignment on May 31, 2023 and entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} On September 11, 2023, Cornett withdrew his plea of not guilty and
entered a plea of guilty, under a negotiated-plea agreement, to the sole count of the
indictment. In exchange for Cornett’s change of plea, the State agreed to a joint-
sentencing recommendation. The trial court accepted Cornett’s guilty plea, found
him guilty, and ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”).
{¶4} On October 27, 2023, the trial court sentenced Cornett to 30 months in
prison.1 (Doc. No. 67).
{¶5} On November 6, 2023, Cornett filed a notice of appeal. He raises one
assignment of error.
1 The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on October 30, 2023.
-2- Case No. 2-23-12
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court’s Sentence of the Defendant-Appellant to a Sentence Totaling (30) Months, Being Above the Joint Recommended Sentence Under ORC 2953.08(D)(1) of Community Control is a Clear and Convincing Violation of the Law in Failing to Properly Consider and Apply the Felony Sentencing Guidelines Set Forth in Ohio Revised Code, Section 2929.11 and 2929.12.
{¶6} In his assignment of error, Cornett challenges the prison sentence
imposed by the trial court. Specifically, Cornett argues that his prison sentence is
contrary to law because there is clear and convincing evidence that the trial court’s
imposition of a prison sentence does not comport with the sentencing guidelines
under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12.
Standard of Review
{¶7} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence
“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,
¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id.
at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the
syllabus.
-3- Case No. 2-23-12
Analysis
{¶8} On appeal, Cornett contends that the felony-sentencing guidelines
under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 weigh in favor of imposing the parties’ joint-
sentencing recommendation of community control rather than a 30-month prison
sentence. However, when imposing a sentence, “‘trial courts have full discretion to
impose any sentence within the statutory range.’” State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Seneca
No. 13-15-17, 2015-Ohio-4225, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Noble, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-
14-06, 2014-Ohio-5485, ¶ 9. Here, as a third-degree felony, the illegal conveyance
of drugs of abuse onto grounds of specified governmental facility carries a possible
sentence of 9- to 36-months imprisonment. R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), 2929.13(C), and
2929.14(A)(3)(b). Because the trial court sentenced Cornett to 30 months in prison,
the trial court’s sentence is within the statutory range. “[A] sentence imposed within
the statutory range is ‘presumptively valid’ if the [trial] court considered applicable
sentencing factors.” State v. Maggette, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-06, 2016-Ohio-
5554, ¶ 31, quoting State v. Collier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95572, 2011-Ohio-
2791, ¶ 15.
As it relates to this case, trial courts must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
R.C. 2929.11 provides, in its relevant part, that the
overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those
-4- Case No. 2-23-12
purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.
R.C. 2929.11(A). “In advancing these purposes, sentencing courts are instructed to
‘consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others
from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim
of the offense, the public, or both.’” Smith at ¶ 10, quoting R.C. 2929.11(A).
“Meanwhile, R.C. 2929.11(B) states that felony sentences must be ‘commensurate
with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact
upon the victim’ and also be consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.”
Id., quoting R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶9} “In accordance with these principles, the trial court must consider the
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12(B)-(E) relating to the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct and the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism.” Id., citing R.C.
2929.12(A). “‘A sentencing court has broad discretion to determine the relative
weight to assign the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting State
v. Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524, 2011-Ohio-5032, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.).
{¶10} “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any
specific factual findings on the record.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-
Ohio-6729, ¶ 20. “A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory
factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing
statutes.” Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32.
-5- Case No. 2-23-12
{¶11} Thus, when imposing a felony sentence, “it is ‘[t]he trial court [that]
determines the weight afforded to any particular statutory factors, mitigating
grounds, or other relevant circumstances.’” State v. McKennelly, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA2017-04-055, 2017-Ohio-9092, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Steger, 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2016-03-059, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18, citing State v. Stubbs, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 13AP-810, 2014-Ohio-3696, ¶ 16. “The fact that the trial court chose
to weigh various sentencing factors differently than how appellant would have
weighed them does not mean the trial court erred in imposing appellant’s sentence.”
Id.
{¶12} As Cornett concedes, the trial court considered the principles and
purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12 at Cornett’s sentencing hearing and in its
sentencing entry. (Oct. 27, 2023 Tr. at 6); (Doc. No. 67). Nevertheless, Cornett
contends that the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s
findings under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 because “the record supports that these
findings clearly indicate that leniency appropriate [sic] and imposing the prison
sentence was contrary to law.” (Appellant’s Brief at 7). In other words, Cornett
disagrees with the trial court’s application of the sentencing guidelines under R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 to the facts and circumstances of his case. Compare State v.
Reed, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-20-16, 2021-Ohio-1623, ¶ 17 (resolving that “Reed
-6- Case No. 2-23-12
simply disagrees with the trial court’s application of these factors to the facts and
circumstances of his case”).
{¶13} The record in this case reveals that Cornett’s argument is without
merit. Importantly, the Supreme Court of Ohio has directed Ohio’s courts of appeal
that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) “clearly does not provide a basis for an appellate court
to modify or vacate a sentence if it concludes that the record does not support the
sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 because * * * R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.
2929.12 are not among the statutes listed in the provision.” Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d
242, 2020-Ohio-6729, at ¶ 31. As a result, this court may not modify or vacate a
felony sentence based on a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the record
does not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12. Reed at
¶ 19, citing Jones at ¶ 32-39. Consequently, “‘when reviewing felony sentences that
are imposed solely after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12,
we shall no longer analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record.
We simply must determine whether those sentences are contrary to law.’” Id.,
quoting State v. Dorsey, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28747, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18.
{¶14} In this case, the trial court determined that a 30-month prison term is
consistent with the principles and purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C.
2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.
Specifically, after weighing the seriousness and recidivism factors, the trial court
concluded that Cornett is likely to commit future crimes because he has a history of
-7- Case No. 2-23-12
criminal convictions and he has not responded favorably to sanctions previously
imposed for those criminal convictions. See R.C. 2929.12(D)(2). Importantly, the
trial court found that Cornett’s “record of violence, including felonious assault,
repeated incidences of domestic violence, repeated [operating-a-motor-vehicle-
while-intoxicated convictions, and] repeated involvement with the criminal justice
system as set forth in the PSI, [indicate that] he’s not amenable to treatment.” (Oct.
27, 2023 Tr. at 7). Furthermore, the trial court found that Cornett “committed [a]
domestic violence, a violent act, while out on bond from this Court.” (Id. at 8).
{¶15} Based on our review of the record, even though Cornett would have
weighed the considerations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 differently, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 30-month
prison sentence (instead of the parties’ joint-sentencing recommendation of
community control). Accord State v. West, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-22-07, 2022-
Ohio-4069, ¶ 21. Therefore, because Cornett’s sentence is within the sentencing
range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, Cornett’s
sentence is not contrary to law. See Reed at ¶ 20.
{¶16} Cornett’s assignment of error is overruled.
WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls
-8-