State v. Saunders

2023 Ohio 4610

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 18, 2023
• Docket: 8-23-09
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Saunders, 2023-Ohio-4610.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 8-23-09

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

RICHARD L. SAUNDERS, JR., OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 21 050137

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: December 18, 2023

APPEARANCES:

Addie J. King for Appellant

Sarah J. Warren for Appellee Case No. 8-23-09

WALDICK, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard L. Saunders, Jr. (“Saunders”), appeals the

judgment of sentence entered against him in the Logan County Court of Common

Pleas on April 4, 2023. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Procedural History

{¶2} This case originated on June 14, 2022, when the Logan County Grand

Jury returned a two-count indictment charging Saunders as follows: Count 1 –

Felonious Assault, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); and

Count 2 – Domestic Violence, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A)

and (D)(4).

{¶3} On August 23, 2022, an arraignment was held and Saunders entered

initial pleas of not guilty.

{¶4} On February 27, 2023, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,

Saunders entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment and, in

exchange, the prosecution dismissed Count 1. The trial court accepted the guilty

plea and ordered a presentence investigation.

{¶5} On April 4, 2023, a sentencing hearing was held and Saunders was

sentenced to a 36-month prison term, with credit for 205 days previously served.

{¶6} On May 1, 2023, Saunders filed the instant appeal, in which he raises a

single assignment of error for our review.

-2- Case No. 8-23-09

Assignment of Error

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in sentencing defendant-appellant to a maximum term of imprisonment.

Analysis

{¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Saunders contends that the trial court

erred in imposing a maximum prison term of 36 months. Specifically, Saunders

argues that the judgment entry of sentencing provides no explanation as to how the

trial court applied or weighed the factors relevant to the court’s sentencing decision.

{¶8} As an initial matter, we note that the standard of review in this matter

is not abuse of discretion, but whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly

contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 10; R.C.

2953.08. The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited sentencing review by

holding that 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, 163 Ohio St.3d 242,

2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within

the statutory range. State v. Johnson, 3d Dist. Allen Nos. 1-20-48 and 1-20-49,

2021-Ohio-1768, ¶ 9. “A sentence imposed within the 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

-3- Case No. 8-23-09

in R.C. 2929.12.” Id., citing State v. Dorsey, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28747, 2021-

Ohio-76, ¶ 16.

{¶9} In the instant case, Saunders was convicted of Domestic Violence, a

felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(4). The

authorized range of prison sentences for a third-degree felony of that type is a

definite term of nine, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six months. R.C.

2929.14(A)(3)(b). Thus, the 36-month prison sentence imposed by the trial court

was within the statutory range.

{¶10} In the judgment entry of sentencing, the trial court specifically noted

that it had considered “the record, oral statements, any victim impact statement and

pre-sentence report prepared, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing

under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” (4/4/23 Judgment Entry, Docket No. 64). The

trial court noted that it had also considered “the need for deterrence, incapacitation,

rehabilitation, and restitution.” Id.

{¶11} As the record before us confirms that the trial court considered the

overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the statutory

factors relating to seriousness and recidivism set forth in R.C. 2929.12, and because

the sentence imposed was within the statutory range of sentencing options, the

sentence in this case was not contrary to law.

{¶12} The assignment of error is overruled.

-4- Case No. 8-23-09

Conclusion

{¶13} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued, the

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Logan County is affirmed.

MILLER, P.J. AND WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.

/eks

-5-