State v. Meeks

2024 Ohio 108

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: WM-23-001
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Meeks, 2024-Ohio-108.]

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

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-23-001

Appellee Trial Court No. 21CR000225

v.

Scott G. Meeks DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: January 12, 2024

*****

Katherine J. Zartman, Williams County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Karin L. Coble, for appellant.

SULEK, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant Scott G. Meeks appeals the judgment of the Williams County

Court of Common Pleas, convicting him following his guilty plea to five sexual offenses

involving minors and sentencing him to an indefinite term of six to nine years in prison.

For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. I. Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On November 9, 2021, the Williams County Grand Jury returned a 31-count

indictment against Meeks, charging him with one count of importuning in violation of

R.C. 2907.07(D)(2) and (F)(3),1 a felony of the fifth degree; one count of pandering

obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and (C), a felony of the

second degree; 20 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in

violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1) and (C), felonies of the second degree; and nine counts

of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(1)

and (B), felonies of the second degree. The charges stemmed from Meeks’ online

conduct in soliciting and possessing child pornography.

{¶ 3} On November 14, 2022, Meeks entered a guilty plea to the count of

importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(D)(2) and (F)(3), a felony of the fifth degree;

the count of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1)

and (C), a felony of the second degree; and three amended counts of pandering sexually

oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), felonies of the

fourth degree. The trial court accepted Meeks’ plea, found him guilty, and continued the

matter for preparation of a presentence investigation report.

{¶ 4} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard statements in mitigation from

Meeks and his counsel. Meeks accepted responsibility for his conduct and expressed

1 R.C. 2907.07 was amended effective April 4, 2023. The citations in this case refer to the prior version in effect at the time of Meeks’ offense.

2. remorse, stating that it occurred during a dark time in his life. He promised that it would

never happen again. He also noted that he has no felony criminal record and no

substance abuse issues, but he recognizes his need for mental health services. Finally, he

stated that he has family support and the ability to sustain gainful employment.

{¶ 5} Thereafter, upon consideration of the record, the statements in mitigation,

and the principles and purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and

recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12, the trial court sentenced Meeks to serve 11 months in

prison on the count of importuning, six to nine years in prison on the count of pandering

obscenity involving a minor, and 17 months in prison on each of the three amended

counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor. The trial court further

ordered the prison terms to be served concurrently, for a total indefinite prison term of six

to nine years.

II. Assignment of Error

{¶ 6} Meeks timely appealed his judgment of conviction and asserts one

assignment of error for review:

1. Mr. Meeks’ sentence is not contrary to law, but it is clearly and

convincingly not supported by the record.

III. Analysis

{¶ 7} Felony sentences are reviewed pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which

provides, in pertinent part,

3. The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a

sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and

remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate

court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its

discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this

division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings

under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of

section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,

whichever, if any, is relevant;

(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

{¶ 8} Here, none of the findings under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) are applicable; thus,

Meeks must demonstrate that his sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” under R.C.

2953.08(G)(2)(b). “Contrary to law” means “‘in violation of statute or legal regulations

at a given time.’” State v. Goode, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-22-012, 2023-Ohio-863, ¶ 6,

quoting State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 34; see

also State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22.

{¶ 9} Meeks, however, acknowledges that his sentence is not contrary to law.

Instead, he argues that his sentence is too lengthy in light of the record and the statutory

guidelines. Specifically, Meeks cites the factors under R.C. 2929.12(B) and (C)

4. demonstrating that his conduct is “less serious,” not “more serious.” He also cites the

factors under R.C. 2929.12(D) and (E) demonstrating that he is less likely, not more

likely, to commit future offenses. Thus, he asks this court to reconsider his sentence and

impose community control or a shorter prison term.

{¶ 10} Meeks requests relief that the statute does not provide. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)

“does not permit an appellate court to conduct an independent review of a trial court’s

sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.12 or its adherence to the purposes of felony

sentencing under R.C. 2929.11” State v. Reynolds, 6th Dist. Sandusky Nos. S-22-022, S-

22-023, 2023-Ohio-2624, ¶ 10, quoting Bryant at ¶ 21; see also Jones at ¶ 41-42. Thus,

this court cannot review the trial court’s finding and weighing of those factors, and his

assignment of error on this issue may be summarily denied. State v. Bowles, 2021-Ohio-

4401, 181 N.E.3d 1226, ¶ 8, 10 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397,

2021-Ohio-3531, 186 N.E.3d 784, ¶ 1.

{¶ 11} Accordingly, Meeks’ assignment of error is not well-taken.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Williams County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed. Meeks is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to

App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

5. State of Ohio v. Scott G. Meeks WM-23-001

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

Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ Charles E. Sulek, P.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/.

6.