State v. Goins

2025 Ohio 160

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: CT2024-0083
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : Case No. CT2024-0083 : BRANDON GOINS : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2024-0060

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 17, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:

JOSEPH A. PALMER CHRIS BRIGDON MUSKINGUM CO. PROSC. OFFICE 8138 Somerset Road 27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189 Thornville, OH 43076 Zanesville, OH 43702 [Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]

Delaney, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant Brandon Goins appeals from the July 17, 2024 Entry of the

Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} The following statement of fact is adduced from appellee’s statement at

appellant’s change-of-plea hearing on May 29, 2024.

{¶3} Officers responded to a residence for a call of a man with a gun; the caller

advised appellant was armed and kicking the front door of the residence. Upon arrival,

officers spotted appellant on the front porch and he fled the scene. Police spoke to the

residents and learned appellant demanded sex from them and they refused, leading to

an argument. Appellant discharged a weapon into the floor of the residence, which the

occupants took as a direct threat.

{¶4} Appellant was charged with one count of having weapons while under

disability, a felony of the third degree, and two counts of aggravated menacing, both

misdemeanors of the first degree. Appellant opted to enter pleas of guilty and the trial

court ordered a presentence investigation. The trial court imposed a maximum sentence

of 36 months upon the felony count, to be served concurrently with two terms of 180 days

each on the misdemeanors, for a total aggregate sentence of 36 months.

{¶5} Appellant raises one assignment of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶6} “SHOULD THIS COURT REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO

IMPOSE A MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON COUNT I, HAVING WEAPONS UNDER [Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]

DISABILITY, BECAUSE THE SENTENCE WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE

SENTENCING STATUTES R.C. 2929.11 AND R.C. 2929.12?”

ANALYSIS

{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court failed to

properly consider the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. We

disagree.

{¶8} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.

2953.08. State v. Davis, 2022-Ohio-2397, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.) citing State v. Marcum, 2016-

Ohio-1002, ¶ 22; State v. Howell, 2015-Ohio-4049, ¶ 31 (5th Dist.). R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)

provides that we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand

for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not

support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or

(C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Davis, 2022-Ohio-2397,

¶ 9; see also, State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 28.

{¶9} 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. The Ohio

Supreme Court further elucidated in State v. Toles, 2021-Ohio-3531, at ¶ 10, “R.C.

2953.08, as amended, precludes second-guessing a sentence imposed by the trial court

based on its weighing of the considerations in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”

{¶10} In State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified its

holding in Jones, supra, stating: [Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]

The narrow holding in Jones is that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does

not allow 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. See Jones at ¶ 31, 39. Nothing about that

holding should be construed as prohibiting appellate review of a

sentence when the claim is that the sentence was improperly

imposed based on impermissible considerations -- i.e.,

considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C.

2929.11 and 2929.12. Indeed, in Jones, this court made clear that

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate courts to reverse or modify

sentencing decisions that are “otherwise contrary to law.” Jones at ¶

32, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). This court also recognized that

“otherwise contrary to law” means “in violation of statute or legal

regulations at a given time.” Id. at ¶ 34 quoting Black's Law Dictionary

328 (6th Ed.1990). Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a

sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to

those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence

is contrary to law. Claims that raise these types of issues are

therefore reviewable.

State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22.

{¶11} R.C. 2929.11(A) outlines the “the overriding purposes of felony sentencing,”

which 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 [Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]

sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an

unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.” R.C. 2929.12 details

factors relating to the seriousness of an offender's conduct, the likelihood of recidivism,

and the purposes and principles of sentencing.

{¶12} A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by R.C. 2953.08(F) to

review the entire trial court record, including any oral or written statements and

presentence investigation reports. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) through (4). Although a court

imposing a felony sentence must consider the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C.

and the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12, “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor quires [the]

court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 20,

citing State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-2669, ¶ 31, and State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215

(2000). Under established law, a “trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence

within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings

or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v.

Sullens, 2022-Ohio-2305, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.), internal citations omitted.

{¶13} The record demonstrates that the trial court imposed a prison term within

the statutory range for a felony of the third degree and specifically considered the requisite

statutory factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it fashioned appellant's

sentence. In the instant case, the significant factor for the trial court was appellant’s three

prior convictions for the same offense of having weapons while under disability. The trial

court noted appellant forfeited his right to have a weapon many times over, and yet

continues to be found with weapons. T. 15. Appellant also had previous probation

violations and an admitted drug problem. Muskingum County, Case No. 2024-0083 6

{¶14} The trial court imposed a maximum sentence upon the single felony

count and it was within the trial court's discretion to do so. Based upon the record

of the change- of-plea and sentencing hearings, we find the trial court's sentence

was not contrary to law.

{¶15} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.

CONCLUSION

{¶16} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment

of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Delaney, P.J.,

Hoffman , J., .and

Baldwin, J., concur.