[Cite as State v. Sims, 2023-Ohio-3758.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

DARRELL E. SIMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2023-T-0028

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00794

O P I N I O N

Decided: October 16, 2023

Judgment: Affirmed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 

44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Sean P. Martin, 113 North Chestnut Street, Suite A, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For 

Defendant-Appellant).

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Darrell Sims, appeals his sentence from the Trumbull County 

Court of Common Pleas. He specifically asserts that the trial court erred in imposing 

consecutive sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

{¶2} On May 30, 2023, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Burglary, seconddegree felonies in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2)(D). The court sentenced Appellant to 

thirty-six months imprisonment on each count. The court ordered that Appellant’s 

sentences be served consecutively. At sentencing and on the judgment entry of 
2

Case No. 2023-T-0028

sentence, the court made all statutorily required findings to impose consecutive 

sentences.

{¶3} Appellant timely appeals and raises one assignment of error:

“The trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentencing upon the Appellant.”

{¶4} Appellant does not argue that the trial court’s imposing consecutive 

sentences was unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Nor does he argue 

that the court failed to make the statutorily required findings. Instead, Appellant contends 

that the trial court improperly applied R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing 

consecutive sentences. He specifically asserts: “Had the trial court properly applied the 

purposes, principles, and factors of sentencing the Appellant would clearly have been 

subject to concurrent sentencing.”

{¶5} Appellant’s argument is misguided. Neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 

requires a court to “apply” the purposes and principles of felony sentencing. R.C. 

2929.11(A) requires that a court be “guided” by the overriding purposes and principles, 

while R.C. 2929.12(A) generally grants a court discretion to determine the most effective 

way to “comply with” them and to “consider” certain factors in doing so. To be clear, 

Appellant’s argument conflates the statutory requirements; whether or not the court 

applied certain factors, or the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, has nothing 

to do with whether the court “considered” them or was “guided” by them.

{¶6} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or 

otherwise modify consecutive sentences imposed under R.C. 292914(C)(4) if it clearly 

and convincingly finds that: (a) the record does not support the sentencing court’s 

findings; or (b) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. 
3

Case No. 2023-T-0028

{¶7} But, “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits 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.” State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42. 

When sentencing, a “trial court is not required to give any particular weight or emphasis 

to a given set of circumstances; it is merely required to consider the statutory factors in 

exercising its discretion.” State v. Delmanzo, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-218, 2008-Ohio5856, ¶ 23. A sentencing court fulfills its duties under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when it 

states that it considered them. State v. DeLuca, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-089, 2021-

Ohio-1007, ¶ 18. Moreover, “[e]ven a ‘silent record raises the presumption’ that the 

sentencing court considered all relevant factors.” State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295, 

525 N.E.2d 1361 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶8} There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the trial court failed to 

“consider” R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial court fulfilled its duty by stating that it 

“considered” them. 

{¶9} Insofar as Appellant argues that the trial court should not have sentenced

him to consecutive sentences, he fails to argue that the trial court did not comply with the 

requirements under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(7), it is Appellant's 

duty to do so. The appellate court will not construct an argument on his behalf.

{¶10} Appellant’s assignment of error is without merit.
4

Case No. 2023-T-0028

{¶11} We affirm the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.