[Cite as State v. Buck, 2021-Ohio-1073.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WOOD COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-20-031 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 2019CR0356 

v. 

Tahra S. Buck DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 31, 2021 

* * * * * 

 Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

 Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

MAYLE, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Tahra Buck, appeals the March 4, 2020 judgment of the Wood 

County Court of Common Pleas sentencing her to 17 months in prison following her 

conviction for theft from a person in a protected class. For the following reasons, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
2.

I. Background

{¶ 2} On August 8, 2019, Buck was indicted on one count of theft from a person 

in a protected class in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(3), a fourth-degree felony. 

On August 20, 2019, Buck appeared, without counsel, for her arraignment. She was 

determined to be indigent and was assigned counsel. She then entered a not guilty plea to 

the single theft count. 

{¶ 3} On January 20, 2020, Buck appeared for a change of plea hearing. 

Following negotiations with the state, Buck agreed to enter a guilty plea to the charge as 

indicted. In exchange for the guilty plea, the state agreed to recommend a sentence 

consisting of a term of community control rather than a prison term. The trial court 

accepted Buck’s guilty plea and ordered her to participate in a presentencing interview 

before her sentencing hearing on March 3, 2020. 

{¶ 4} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a 17-month prison term for 

Buck’s theft conviction. Buck’s sentence was memorialized in a judgment entry dated 

March 4, 2020. Buck timely appealed and asserts the following error for our review: 

The court abused its discretion by sentencing appellant to serve 

a seventeen month term in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Corrections instead of ordering community control sanctions as 

recommended by the State of Ohio. 

 
3.

II. Law and Analysis 

{¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error, Buck argues that her sentence is contrary to 

law because the trial court did not properly consider the purposes of felony sentencing 

under R.C. 2929.11 or appropriately weigh the seriousness and recidivism factors under 

R.C. 2929.12 when it fashioned her sentence. According to Buck, the trial court surely 

would have ordered community control sanctions—instead of a 17-month prison term—if 

it had appropriately considered the statutory factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. 

{¶ 6} We review felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Goings, 6th 

Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1103, 2014-Ohio-2322, ¶ 20. In State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. 

Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio- 425, ¶ 15, we recognized that a sentence is not clearly 

and convincingly contrary to law for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) where the trial 

court has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the 

seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applied postrelease 

control, and sentenced the defendant within the statutorily-permissible range. The burden 

is on the appellant to identify clear and convincing evidence in the record that their 

sentence was erroneously imposed. State v. Torres, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-18-008, 

2019-Ohio-434, ¶ 6. 

{¶ 7} Importantly, however, the Ohio Supreme Court has made clear that “neither 

R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on 

the record.” State v. Jones, -- N.E.3d --, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 20. In fact, 

the trial court’s consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is 
4.

presumed even on a silent record. State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 

108 N.E.3d 1 (2017); State v. Cyrus, 63 Ohio St.3d 164, 166, 586 N.E.2d 94, 95 (1992). 

An appellate court may not independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment 

for that of the trial court regarding the appropriate sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 

2929.12, nor may it modify or vacate a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) based on 

the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under those statutes. Jones 

at ¶ 39, 41-42. 

{¶ 8} Here, Buck argues that her prison sentence was contrary to law because the 

trial court “failed to fully comply with the requirements of R.C. 2929.11, the purposes of 

sentencing, and R.C. 2929.12, seriousness of crime and recidivism factors in ordering 

[her to serve] a seventeen month ODRC sentence.” Specifically, she claims that the trial 

court failed to consider two mitigating factors which would support the imposition of a 

lesser sentence—her need for substance abuse treatment and the lack of physical harm 

resulting from her conduct—when it determined that the appropriate sentence was a 

17-month prison term for her theft conviction. Buck argues that had the trial court 

properly weighed the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12 it would have 

determined that a term of community control was the appropriate sentence. This, she 

argues, resulted in a sentence that exceeded the minimum sanction necessary to 

accomplish the principals of felony sentencing established in R.C. 2929.11. 

{¶ 9} Essentially, Buck asks this court to make an independent determination as to 

whether the record supports her sentence under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. But, as the 
5.

Supreme Court of Ohio recognized in Jones, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an 

“appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its 

judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance 

with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Id. at ¶ 42. Accordingly, because we cannot second 

guess the trial court’s application of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, Buck’s sole assignment 

of error is found not well-taken. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 10} We cannot independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute 

our judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects 

compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Therefore, we find Buck’s assignment of 

error not well-taken and affirm the March 4, 2020 judgment of the Wood County Court 

of Common Pleas. Buck is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

 
6.

 State v. Buck 

 C.A. No. WD-20-031 

Christine E. Mayle, J. _______________________________ 

 JUDGE 

Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. 

 _______________________________ 

Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.