State v. Paxson

2024 Ohio 2680

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 15, 2024
• Docket: 15-23-10
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Paxson, 2024-Ohio-2680.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 15-23-10 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

TYLER L. PAXSON, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Van Wert County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR-23-05-060

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Catherine Meehan for Appellant

Morgan A. Jackson and Dillon Staas for Appellee Case No. 15-23-10

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tyler Paxson (“Paxson”) brings this appeal from

the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Van Wert County sentencing him to

an aggregate prison term of 8 to 12 years. On appeal Paxson challenges the sentence

imposed by the trial court. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} On May 5, 2023, police were dispatched to a home after receiving a

report that someone was breaking into the home. When the officers arrived, they

saw the door broken, so they entered the home. A male, later identified as Paxson,

was seen in the home with blood on his hands. The officer heard a woman crying

and went into the front room. Another male was clutching his head with blood

coming from it. The woman told the police that Paxson was the one who had broken

into the home. The male victim identified Paxson as the person who struck him in

the head with a metal pipe. Paxson was immediately taken into custody.

{¶3} On September 11, 2023, Paxson entered a guilty plea to one count of

felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), a felony of the

second degree, and one count of trespass in a habitation when a person is present or

likely to be present in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B), (E), a felony of the fourth

degree. The plea was entered as part of a plea agreement in which Paxson agreed

to plead guilty to those counts and in exchange, the State would dismiss the

-2- Case No. 15-23-10

remaining charges and recommend concurrent sentences. The trial court accepted

the guilty plea and set the matter for sentencing.

{¶4} On October 25, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Prior to

the hearing the trial court reviewed the presentence investigation report which

showed an extensive history of criminal offenses by Paxson. At the time of this

offense, Paxson was on post release control after being released from prison earlier

in the year. The trial court ordered that Paxson serve a prison term of 8-12 years for

the felonious assault conviction and 18 months for the trespass in a habitation when

a person is present conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served

concurrently. Following the sentencing hearing, the State dismissed the remaining

charges. Paxson appealed from the judgment of the trial court and on appeal raises

the following assignment of error.

The trial court erred when it imposed the longest minimum prison term for the offense of the highest degree for two offenses that arose out of a single incident.

{¶5} In the sole assignment of error, Paxson claims that the trial court erred

by imposing the longest minimum prison sentences because the two sentences arose

out of a single incident. Initially this Court notes that the two offenses in this case

are not allied offenses subject to merger and no one argues differently. Instead,

Paxson appears to argue that the trial court should have imposed community control

instead of prison, because the record does not support the imposition of prison.

-3- Case No. 15-23-10

{¶6} The two convictions in this case were felonies of the second degree and

the fourth degree. For a felony of the second degree, the range of sentences is 2-8

years. R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a). For a felony of the fourth degree, the range of

sentences is 6-18 months. R.C. 2929.14(B)(4). Felonies of the second degree carry

a presumption in favor of prison. R.C. 2929.19(B). A trial court can only overcome

this presumption and impose community control instead of prison if it makes two

findings. R.C. 2929.13(D)(2). First, the trial court must find that community

control would adequately punish the offender and protect the public because the

chance of recidivism is low. R.C. 2929.13(D)(2)(a). Second, the trial court must

find that imposing community control would not demean the seriousness of the

offense because the offense was less serious than conduct normally constituting the

offense. R.C. 2929.13(D)(2)(b). Both of these findings require the trial court to

make the findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.12.

{¶7} Here, the trial court indicated on the record that it had considered the

presentence investigation report and the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that appellate courts do not have the

authority to consider how the trial court applied the statutory factors in R.C. 2929.11

and 2929.12. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. According to the Court, 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.” Id. at ¶ 39. “A sentence imposed within the

-4- Case No. 15-23-10

statutory range is not contrary to law as long as the trial court considered the

purposes and principles of felony sentencing contained in R.C. 2929.11 and the

sentencing factors contained in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Lane, 2022-Ohio-3775, ¶

85 (3d Dist.).

{¶8} Paxson argues on appeal that this case is distinguishable from Jones

because Paxson received a maximum sentence on the convictions, giving him a right

to appeal under R.C. 2953.08. In order for there to be a meaningful appeal of the

maximum sentence imposed, Paxson claims that this court must consider the

statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 and the principles and purposes of

sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11. Without this review, Paxson claims he is

denied the appeal granted to him by statute. However, Paxson points us to no legal

precedent which would support this position. While this Court may understand the

frustration of defendants at the lack of authority for appellate courts to fully review

their sentences, we must follow the precedent set forth by the Supreme Court of

Ohio in Jones.

{¶9} Paxson is arguing that the trial court erred in applying the factors

because it imposed a prison term rather than giving him community control with a

sanction requiring he participate in a drug treatment program. This Court, pursuant

to Jones, lacks the authority to review the record to consider how a trial court has

applied the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11

and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. The sentences imposed were

-5- Case No. 15-23-10

within the statutory ranges. As such, they were not contrary to law. State v. Skaggs,

2023-Ohio-2199 (3d Dist.). Since the sentence was not contrary to law, the

assignment of error is overruled.

{¶10} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Van Wert

County is affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

-6-