[Cite as State v. Rimmer, 2019-Ohio-1936.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-18-08
v.
WILLIAM S. RIMMER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-18-09
Appeals from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court Trial Court Nos. 18-CR-0049 and 18-CR-0084
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 20, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Todd A. Workman for Appellant
Douglas D. Rowland for Appellee Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
SHAW. J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, William S. Rimmer (“Rimmer”), appeals the
October 5, 2018 judgments of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas,
journalizing his convictions, after entering a guilty plea, for Illegal Cultivation of
Marihuana within the vicinity of a juvenile and for Medicaid Fraud. As a result of
his convictions, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of four years in prison.
On appeal, Rimmer argues that his sentence is not supported by the record.
Procedural History
{¶2} On May 9, 2018, in case number 18-CR-0049, the Wyandot County
Grand Jury returned a one count indictment against Rimmer charging him with
Illegal Cultivation of Marihuana, in excess of 5,000 grams but less than 20,000
grams, and specified that the offense occurred within the vicinity of a juvenile, in
violation of R.C. 2925.04(A), a felony of the second degree. The charge stemmed
from law enforcement’s execution of search warrants at two properties associated
with Rimmer, where extensive marijuana grow operations were found. At
arraignment, Rimmer entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} On July 27, 2018, in case number 18-CR-0084, the Wyandot County
Grand Jury returned a one count indictment against Rimmer charging him with
Medicaid Fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.40(B), a felony of the fifth degree. The
charge arose out of the investigation of Rimmer’s marijuana grow operations. It was
-2- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
discovered that Rimmer had made false statements about his family’s financial
situation to the Wyandot County Department of Job and Family services, which
resulted in his family fraudulently receiving $144,624.20 in Medicaid benefits.
{¶4} On July 31, 2018, Rimmer appeared in court and entered a plea of guilty
to the Medicaid Fraud charge in case number 18-CR-0084, and withdrew his
previously tendered not guilty plea to the Illegal Cultivation of Marihuana in case
number 18-CR-0049 and entered a guilty plea in that case. The trial court accepted
Rimmer’s guilty pleas and set the cases for sentencing.
{¶5} On October 4, 2018, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing
where it heard testimony from Rimmer’s family requesting leniency and the State’s
arguments for the imposition of a five-year prison term. Before pronouncing its
sentence, the trial court reviewed exhibits submitted by Rimmer in support of
mitigating sentencing factors, in addition to the presentence investigation report,
which was marked as a court’s exhibit. The trial court found that Rimmer was not
amenable to community control and noted that there is a presumption for prison for
his Illegal Cultivation of Marihuana conviction.
{¶6} The trial court concluded that the facts raised at sentencing did not
overcome this presumption and imposed a prison term of four years on the Illegal
Cultivation of Marihuana conviction, in case number 18-CR-0049, and an eleven
month prison term for the Medicaid Fraud conviction in case number 18-CR-0084.
-3- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
The trial court ordered the prison terms to be served concurrently for a total prison
term of four years. The trial court also ordered restitution to the Wyandot County
Department of Job and Family Services in the amount of $144,624.20. The trial
court’s sentence was journalized in its October 5, 2018 Judgment Entry, filed in
each case.
{¶7} It is from these judgment entries that Rimmer now appeals, asserting
the following assignment of error.1
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED APPELLANT TO MANDATORY PRISON TIME NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD IN LIGHT OF THE MITIGATING FACTORS PRESENTED AT SENTENCING.
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Rimmer argues that the trial court erred
in imposing a prison term upon him instead of imposing community control. For
clarity of the record, we note that in his brief Rimmer asserts that the trial court
imposed a mandatory five-year prison term as his sentence, however, the record
establishes that the trial court imposed a discretionary four-year prison term.
Nevertheless, Rimmer maintains that the trial court failed to give due consideration
to mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing.
1 The record reflects that Rimmer filed separate notices of appeal in each case. Trial court case number 18- CR-0049 was assigned appellate number 16-18-08, and trial court case number 18-CR-0084 was assigned appellate number 16-18-09. This Court consolidated the cases for briefing and oral argument under appellate number 16-18-08.
-4- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
{¶9} The standard of review for felony sentences is provided by R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 9-23.
“The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence] shall review the record,
including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the
sentencing court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “Applying the plain language of R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), * * * an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on
appeal 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.” Marcum at ¶ 1.
{¶10} In the instant case, the record reflects that the trial court considered the
principles and purposes of R.C. 2919.11, the recidivism factors of R.C. 2919.12,
and the presumption of a prison term for a second degree felony stated in R.C.
2929.13(D)(1) when it imposed a prison term upon Rimmer. Moreover, a four-year
prison term and an eleven-month prison term are well within the permissible
statutory ranges, for Rimmer’s second degree felony and fifth degree felony
convictions. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(stating that the statutory range for the second
degree felony in this case is “two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years,” and
that the statutory range for a fifth degree felony is “six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
eleven, or twelve months”).
-5- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
{¶11} On appeal, Rimmer claims that the trial court failed to give adequate
weight to the fact that Rimmer is the primary financial provider for his family, which
includes his wife, who suffers from ulcerative colitis, and three young children.
Rimmer further claims that he grew marijuana to assist with his wife’s illness. He
also points to documentation that he submitted as part of the record which
demonstrates that he had obtained lawful employment, had voluntarily enrolled in
substance abuse recovery programs, and had complied with the conditions of his
bond. Thus, Rimmer claims he has established that he can take steps to rehabilitate
himself without being sent to prison.
{¶12} At the outset the record contradicts Rimmer’s characterization of his
marijuana grow operation.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Rimmer, 2019-Ohio-1936.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-18-08
v.
WILLIAM S. RIMMER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-18-09
Appeals from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court Trial Court Nos. 18-CR-0049 and 18-CR-0084
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 20, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Todd A. Workman for Appellant
Douglas D. Rowland for Appellee Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
SHAW. J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, William S. Rimmer (“Rimmer”), appeals the
October 5, 2018 judgments of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas,
journalizing his convictions, after entering a guilty plea, for Illegal Cultivation of
Marihuana within the vicinity of a juvenile and for Medicaid Fraud. As a result of
his convictions, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of four years in prison.
On appeal, Rimmer argues that his sentence is not supported by the record.
Procedural History
{¶2} On May 9, 2018, in case number 18-CR-0049, the Wyandot County
Grand Jury returned a one count indictment against Rimmer charging him with
Illegal Cultivation of Marihuana, in excess of 5,000 grams but less than 20,000
grams, and specified that the offense occurred within the vicinity of a juvenile, in
violation of R.C. 2925.04(A), a felony of the second degree. The charge stemmed
from law enforcement’s execution of search warrants at two properties associated
with Rimmer, where extensive marijuana grow operations were found. At
arraignment, Rimmer entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} On July 27, 2018, in case number 18-CR-0084, the Wyandot County
Grand Jury returned a one count indictment against Rimmer charging him with
Medicaid Fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.40(B), a felony of the fifth degree. The
charge arose out of the investigation of Rimmer’s marijuana grow operations. It was
-2- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
discovered that Rimmer had made false statements about his family’s financial
situation to the Wyandot County Department of Job and Family services, which
resulted in his family fraudulently receiving $144,624.20 in Medicaid benefits.
{¶4} On July 31, 2018, Rimmer appeared in court and entered a plea of guilty
to the Medicaid Fraud charge in case number 18-CR-0084, and withdrew his
previously tendered not guilty plea to the Illegal Cultivation of Marihuana in case
number 18-CR-0049 and entered a guilty plea in that case. The trial court accepted
Rimmer’s guilty pleas and set the cases for sentencing.
{¶5} On October 4, 2018, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing
where it heard testimony from Rimmer’s family requesting leniency and the State’s
arguments for the imposition of a five-year prison term. Before pronouncing its
sentence, the trial court reviewed exhibits submitted by Rimmer in support of
mitigating sentencing factors, in addition to the presentence investigation report,
which was marked as a court’s exhibit. The trial court found that Rimmer was not
amenable to community control and noted that there is a presumption for prison for
his Illegal Cultivation of Marihuana conviction.
{¶6} The trial court concluded that the facts raised at sentencing did not
overcome this presumption and imposed a prison term of four years on the Illegal
Cultivation of Marihuana conviction, in case number 18-CR-0049, and an eleven
month prison term for the Medicaid Fraud conviction in case number 18-CR-0084.
-3- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
The trial court ordered the prison terms to be served concurrently for a total prison
term of four years. The trial court also ordered restitution to the Wyandot County
Department of Job and Family Services in the amount of $144,624.20. The trial
court’s sentence was journalized in its October 5, 2018 Judgment Entry, filed in
each case.
{¶7} It is from these judgment entries that Rimmer now appeals, asserting
the following assignment of error.1
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED APPELLANT TO MANDATORY PRISON TIME NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD IN LIGHT OF THE MITIGATING FACTORS PRESENTED AT SENTENCING.
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Rimmer argues that the trial court erred
in imposing a prison term upon him instead of imposing community control. For
clarity of the record, we note that in his brief Rimmer asserts that the trial court
imposed a mandatory five-year prison term as his sentence, however, the record
establishes that the trial court imposed a discretionary four-year prison term.
Nevertheless, Rimmer maintains that the trial court failed to give due consideration
to mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing.
1 The record reflects that Rimmer filed separate notices of appeal in each case. Trial court case number 18- CR-0049 was assigned appellate number 16-18-08, and trial court case number 18-CR-0084 was assigned appellate number 16-18-09. This Court consolidated the cases for briefing and oral argument under appellate number 16-18-08.
-4- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
{¶9} The standard of review for felony sentences is provided by R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 9-23.
“The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence] shall review the record,
including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the
sentencing court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “Applying the plain language of R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), * * * an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on
appeal 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.” Marcum at ¶ 1.
{¶10} In the instant case, the record reflects that the trial court considered the
principles and purposes of R.C. 2919.11, the recidivism factors of R.C. 2919.12,
and the presumption of a prison term for a second degree felony stated in R.C.
2929.13(D)(1) when it imposed a prison term upon Rimmer. Moreover, a four-year
prison term and an eleven-month prison term are well within the permissible
statutory ranges, for Rimmer’s second degree felony and fifth degree felony
convictions. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(stating that the statutory range for the second
degree felony in this case is “two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years,” and
that the statutory range for a fifth degree felony is “six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
eleven, or twelve months”).
-5- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
{¶11} On appeal, Rimmer claims that the trial court failed to give adequate
weight to the fact that Rimmer is the primary financial provider for his family, which
includes his wife, who suffers from ulcerative colitis, and three young children.
Rimmer further claims that he grew marijuana to assist with his wife’s illness. He
also points to documentation that he submitted as part of the record which
demonstrates that he had obtained lawful employment, had voluntarily enrolled in
substance abuse recovery programs, and had complied with the conditions of his
bond. Thus, Rimmer claims he has established that he can take steps to rehabilitate
himself without being sent to prison.
{¶12} At the outset the record contradicts Rimmer’s characterization of his
marijuana grow operation. As noted by the prosecutor, “[t]his isn’t a situation where
the Defendant had a couple of marijuana plants in a closet with a grow light or a
couple of potted plants around the house that he was harvesting. There were two
grow operations that this Defendant was running, one in Marion County and one in
Wyandot County, and there were 184 plants that were confiscated from his Wyandot
County residence alone, that being the residence for his family and where his
children resided at the time.” (Sent. Tr. at 21).
{¶13} The trial court discussed the documents submitted by Rimmer at
sentencing. In particular, the trial court observed that Rimmer had positive drug
screens with marijuana found in his system which also belied Rimmer’s claim that
-6- Case No. 16-18-08, 16-18-09
he grew the plants to simply ease his wife’s illness. The trial court further
considered Rimmer’s past criminal history, which included “drug offenses, felonies
and OVIs.” (Sent. Tr. at 27). The trial court observed that “Defendant’s home was
used as a grow operation and he purchased another home to main [sic] another
separate grow operation.2 The equipment needed, the care required because of the
sheer size indicates Defendant was growing this stuff to make money. Defendant
was not employed during the nine-year period saying that he was a stay-at-home
dad, but this also allowed him to supervise his operation. * * * The magnitude of
Defendant’s grow operation and the amount of money he obtained illegally through
fraud requires a sanction.” (Id. at 26-27).
{¶14} Based on the foregoing, we find no error in the trial court’s decision
to impose a discretionary four-year prison term upon Rimmer because the prison
terms are within the statutory ranges and the record fully supports the trial court’s
sentence. Therefore, Rimmer’s single assignment of error is overruled.
{¶15} For all these reasons, the assignment of error is overruled and the
judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
2 It is unclear from the record whether Rimmer purchased or rented this second home, but he nevertheless acquired it to have a second site to cultivate marijuana.
-7-