State v. Browning

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 127

Syllabus

Felony sentencing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) findings R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I) R.C. 2929.11 contrary to law permissible range. We review felony sentences under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it \clearly and convincingly finds\ that 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. Under R.C. 2929.11, a sentence imposed for a felony shall be \reasonably calculated\ to achieve \three overriding purposes of felony sentencing\ — (1) to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, (2) to punish the offender, and (3) to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender — \using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.\ Appellant argues his two-year sentence was contrary to law because it failed to comport with the overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11. However, the two-year sentence for appellant's conviction, a third-degree felony, was within the permissible range. In addition, the court's judgment of conviction states that \[t]he court considered all required factors of the law\ and \finds that prison is consistent with the purpose of R.C. 2929.11.\ Further, although the trial court was not required to make findings on the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the trial court discussed its reasoning at the sentencing hearing. As such, we refuse to find that appellant's two-year prison sentence is contrary to law.