State v. Wedel

2024 Ohio 5157

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 28, 2024
• Docket: 14-24-20
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wedel, 2024-Ohio-5157.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 14-24-20 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

WILLIAM MATTHEW WEDEL, JR., OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 23-CR-0169

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: October 28, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Alison Boggs for Appellant

Melissa A. Chase and Raymond Kelly Hamilton for Appellee Case No. 14-24-20

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant William Matthew Wedel (“Wedel”) brings this

appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County finding

him guilty of felonious assault and sentencing him to a prison term of eight to twelve

years. Wedel claims on appeal that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum

sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} On July 21, 2023, the Union County Grand Jury indicted Wedel on two

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

of the second degree. The victim in this case was a 3 year old child who had suffered

a broken left arm. The victim informed the forensic interviewer that Wedel had

“smacked his arm on mom’s table and it hurt bad.” Medical reports showed multiple

healing fractures. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Wedel agreed to change his plea to

guilty and the State agreed to dismiss one of the counts of the indictment. There

was no agreement as to the sentence. Before the trial court accepted the plea, Wedel

was informed that he could receive a prison term with a maximum sentence of 12

years. Additionally, the State read a statement of facts indicating the injuries

suffered by the victim and Wedel agreed with the statement of facts. The trial court

accepted the change of plea, ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”), and set

sentencing for a later date.

-2- Case No. 14-24-20

{¶3} On January 25, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The trial

court noted that it had considered the statements of the State and Wedel, the PSI,

the statutory factors, and the purposes and principles of sentencing. The PSI

included the medical records of the victim showing multiple healing fractures. The

PSI also noted that the victim indicated that Wedel had “smacked his arm on mom’s

table, and it hurt bad.” PSI at 4. The victim also stated that when Wedel was mad

at the victim, Wedel “hurts me, and he whips me”. PSI at 5. The trial court then

imposed the maximum minimum sentence of eight years with a four year tail for an

aggregate prison sentence of eight to twelve years. Wedel appealed from this

judgment and raises the following sentence on appeal.

The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to a maximum sentence on the single count of felonious assault.

{¶4} The sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in imposing a

maximum sentence. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will only reverse

a sentence “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.” State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002. “[A]n appellate

court’s authority to modify or vacate a sentence is limited to situations in which it

concludes that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under

certain specified statutes, not including R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones,

2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 38. “A sentence imposed within the statutory range is not

-3- Case No. 14-24-20

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. Paxson, 2024-Ohio-2680, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.) quoting State v.

Lane, 2022-Ohio-3775, ¶ 85 (3d Dist.).

{¶5} Wedel claims on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing the

maximum sentence. In support of this argument, Wedel argues that the trial court

failed to properly consider the statutory factors of R.C. 2929.12 and considered the

dismissed charge when imposing a sentence. A review of the record shows that the

trial court specifically addressed the R.C. 2929.12 statutory factors at the sentencing

hearing and in its journal entry. The trial court also considered the purposes and

principles of sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11. The range of minimum prison

terms for a felony of the second degree allows for an eight year minimum with a tail

of four years for a maximum sentence of twelve years. R.C. 2929.14(A)(2) and

R.C. 2929.144. Since the proper considerations were made and the sentence

imposed was within the statutory range, the sentence is not contrary to law.

{¶6} Wedel also claims that the sentence was improper because the trial court

considered the other injuries suffered by the victim when there was a possibility that

Wedel did not inflict those injuries. Wedel maintains that the application of this

consideration to the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 makes the sentence

contrary to law because it is not included in the list of statutory factors. However,

the statute specifically provides that the trial court shall consider all relevant factors

-4- Case No. 14-24-20

not included in the list when determining the seriousness and likelihood of

recidivism. R.C. 2929.12(B), (C), (D), and (E). Additionally, the trial court may

consider conduct supporting charges which have been dismissed as part of a plea

agreement when determining an appropriate sentence. State v. Lanning, 2020-Ohio-

2863, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). “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.” State v. Paxson, 2024-Ohio-2680, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.). As we cannot

review how the trial court uses the evidence before it when considering the statutory

factors, we do not find the sentence contrary to law. The assignment of error is

overruled.

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

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County

is affirmed.

WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/hls

-5-