State v. Mixon

2025 Ohio 2970

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: CT2025-0021
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Mixon, 2025-Ohio-2970.]

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. CT2025-0021

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2024- ANTHONY W. MIXON, JR., 0680

Defendant – Appellant Judgment: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry: August 19, 2025

BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: JOSEPH A. PALMER, for Plaintiff-Appellee; CHRIS BRIGDON, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Montgomery, J.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶1} Following the death of a thirteen-month old child, Anthony W. Mixon, Jr.

(hereinafter “Mixon”), was indicted on October 16, 2024, by the Muskingum County Grand

Jury on three counts:

Count One: Endangering Children, R.C. 2921.22(A), 2919.22 E(2)(c);

Count Two: Involuntary Manslaughter, R.C. 2903.04 (A), 2903.04 (C); and

Count Three: Corrupting Another with Drugs, R.C. 2925.02(A)(2). {¶2} Mixon was arraigned on October 23, 2024, and entered pleas of not guilty

to all counts.

{¶3} On December 13, 2024, Mixon withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered

a plea of guilty to counts one and two. Change of Plea Transcript, pp. 17, 18.

{¶4} Mixon also pled guilty on this date to an F4 assault charge in Case No.

CR2024-0714. Id., p. 17.

{¶5} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on January 29, 2025, and merged

counts one and two for purposes of sentencing. The trial court sentenced Mixon to “a

minimum prison sentence of 10 years up to an indefinite maximum of 15 years in prison.

That is mandatory time.” Id., p. 20.

{¶6} The trial court sentenced Mixon to “12 months in prison” in Case number

CR2024-0714. Id., p. 21.

{¶7} The trial court further ordered, “The 12-month sentence with regard to the

0714 case will run consecutively to the 0680 case for an aggregate minimum prison term

of 11 years up to an indefinite maximum of 16 years in prison.” Id., pp. 21, 22.

{¶8} The trial court journalized its findings made at the sentencing hearing in an

Entry filed in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas on January 31, 2025.

{¶9} As part of plea negotiations, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss count three

of the indictment. Said motion was granted by the trial court through its Order Granting

Motion to Dismiss filed on February 3, 2025.

{¶10} Mixon filed a Notice of Appeal on February 24, 2025, and asserts that,

{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING AN AGGREGATE

SENTENCE OF 11 TO 16 YEARS IN PRISON, CONSISTING OF A 10- TO 15-YEAR INDEFINITE SENTENCE FOR INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AND A

CONSECUTIVE 12-MONTH SENTENCE FOR ASSAULT, WHERE THE SENTENCE

WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND NOT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO COMPLY

WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES OF FELONY SENTENCING UNDER R.C.

§§2929.11 AND 2929.12.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶12} Mixon cites R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) in support of his argument. R.C.

2953.08(G)(2) states:

The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section

shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or

modification given by the sentencing court.

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. ANALYSIS

{¶13} Mixon’s sole argument in his Argument section of his Appellant Brief is that,

“The minimum sanctions to achieve the purpose of R.C. § 2929.11 were not reflected in

the sentence appellant received.” Appellant Brief, p. 5.

{¶14} Mixon cites State v. Roth, 2018-Ohio-4005 (5th Dist.), as support for his

argument that an appellate court may review a trial court’s sentence pursuant to R.C.

2953.08.

{¶15} This Court found in Roth, at ¶ 20, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides 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.”

{¶16} Mixon does not argue that the record does not support the sentencing

court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13, R.C. 2929.14 or R.C. 2929.20 but argues that his

sentence is contrary to law.

{¶17} Mixon states, “[t]he record does not support the conclusion that maximum

and consecutive sentencing was the minimum sanction necessary to protect the public

and punish Appellant proportionally. The sentence imposed was clearly and convincingly

unsupported by the record and should be vacated as contrary to law.” Appellant Brief, pp.

7, 8.

{¶18} Mixon pled guilty to Endangering Children, a F3 felony with a stated

minimum prison term of 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 or 36 months. Mixon also pled guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter, an F1 felony with a stated minimum prison term of 3, 4, 5, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 years and a possible maximum of 16.5 years. Plea of Guilty, p. 1.

{¶19} The trial court merged counts one and two and sentenced Mixon to “a stated

minimum mandatory prison term of ten (10) years; an indefinite prison term of fifteen (15)

years.” 1/31/2025 Entry, p. 2.

{¶20} The prison time imposed by the court was mandatory because “Mr. Mixon

has previous prior convictions for Felony 1 or 2 offenses and has previously been to prison

would make any time that the Court imposes on Count 2, the F-1, mandatory prison time.”

Sentencing Transcript, p. 6.

{¶21} Mixon was also sentenced in case number CR2024-0714 during the

sentencing hearing held in the trial court on January 29, 2025. The trial court ruled, “[y]ou

will be sentenced to 12 months in prison.” Id., p. 21. The trial court went on to find, “The

12-month sentence with regard to the 0714 case will run consecutively to the 0680 case

for an aggregate minimum prison term of 11 years up to an indefinite maximum of 16

years in prison.” Id., p. 22.

{¶22} Contrary to Mixon’s statement in his brief, the trial court did not sentence

him to the maximum prison term in the case sub judice. The trial court sentenced Mixon

within the statutory range. The trial court found that, “Pursuant to ORC. § 2929.14(C)(4)

*** the imposition of consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future

crime or to punish the Defendant, and that consecutive sentences are not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct, and to the danger the

Defendant poses to the public.” 1/31/2025 Entry, p. 2. {¶23} The trial court also found, “The Court has considered the record, all

statements, any victim impact statement, the plea recommendation in this matter, as well

as the principles and purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code § 2929.11 and

its balance of seriousness and recidivism factors under Ohio Revised Code § 2929.12.”

Id., p. 12.

{¶24} The trial court stated in its Entry that it properly considered R.C. 2929.11

and 2929.12 prior to imposing sentence. The sentence the trial court imposed was within

the statutory range. The trial court did not issue a sentence that was contrary to law.

CONCLUSION

{¶25} This Court overrules Mixon’s sole assignment of error and affirms the

decision of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court filed on January 31, 2025.

{¶26} Costs to Appellant.

By: Montgomery, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

King, J. concur.