[Cite as State v. Lenneman , 2021-Ohio-2719.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE D ISTRICT OF OHIO

MADISON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

CLAYTON L. LENNEMAN, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2020-12-022

O P I N I O N 8/9/2021

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 2019013320-CS-3909

Nicholas A. Adkins, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ra chel M. Price, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Chaudry Law, LLC, and Adam Chaudry, for appellant.

S. POWELL, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Clayton L. Lenneman, appeals the decision of the Mad ison County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to serve an indefinite sen tence of three-to-fourand-one-half years in prison consecutive to his current term of incarceration, a jointly recommended sentence agreed to by Lenneman and appellee, the st ate of Ohio. For theMadison CA2020-12-022

- 2 - reasons outlined below, we affirm. {¶ 2} On January 30, 2020, Lenneman pled guilty to possession of a de adly weapon while under detention in violation of R.C. 2923.131(A), a second-degree felony. After determining that it had incorrectly sentenced Lenneman at his original sentencing hearing, the trial court held a resentencing hearing and proper ly sentenced Lenneman to the parties' jointly recommended sentence set forth above; an i ndefinite sentence of threeto-four-and-one-half years in prison consecutive to Lenneman's current term of incarceration. The trial court's resentencing hearing took pla ce on November 20, 2020. {¶ 3} Lenneman now appeals the trial court's decision sentencing him to that jointly recommended sentence, raising the following single assignment o f error for review. {¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO A

CONSECUTIVE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT VIOLATED OHIO LAW AND THEREBY

DENIED DEFENDANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER OHIO AND FEDER AL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. {¶ 5} Lenneman argues the trial court erred by sentencing him to serv e an indefinite prison sentence consecutive to his current term of incarceratio n, which, as noted above, was a jointly recommended sentence agreed to by Lenneman and th e state. We disagree. {¶ 6} This court "does not review the sentencing court's decision for an abuse of

discretion." State v. Scott , 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2019-07-051 and CA2019 07-052, 2020-Ohio-3230, ¶ 54, citing State v. Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 10.

"It is instead the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) that governs all felony

sentences." State v. Watkins , 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2020-03-005, 2021-Ohio-163, ¶ 48, citing State v. Crawford , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12-088, 2013-Ohio-3315, ¶ 6; a nd

State v. Julious , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-4822, ¶ 8 ("[a ]s with all felony sentences, we review this sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C.Madison CA2020-12-022

- 3 - 2953.08[G][2]"). The standard prescribed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is, in fact, "the only standard applicable to felony sentencing * * *." State v. Paul , 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2020- 08-010, 2021-Ohio-1628, ¶ 9, fn.1. {¶ 7} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), this court may increase, reduce , "or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing, " if this court clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of sect ion 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. "R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) therefore does not provide a basis for a n 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. {¶ 8} Rather than setting forth any specific argument challenging the trial court's sentencing decision, Lenneman instead requests this court to re view the sentence imposed by the trial court to "ensure that the trial court adhered to i ts statutorily mandated duty to ascertain if the trial court's sentence was clearly and convinc ingly contrary to law." The sentence imposed by the trial court, however, was a jointly rec ommended sentence agreed to by Lenneman and the state. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), "[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the pros ecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge." That is to say, a jointly r ecommended sentence is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) if "'(1) both, the defendan t and the state agree to theMadison CA2020-12-022

- 4 - sentence, (2) the trial court imposes the agreed sentence, and (3) the sentence is authorized by law.'" State v. Downing , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2019-05-038, 2019-Ohio4831, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Underwood , 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 16. "'A sentence is "authorized by law" and is not appealable within th e meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions.'" State v.

Wardlow , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-01-011, 2014-Ohio-5740, ¶ 12, qu oting Underwood at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 9} After a thorough review of the record, we find the trial court' s decision sentencing Lenneman to serve an indefinite prison sentence cons ecutive to his current term of incarceration was "authorized by law" in that it comports wi th all mandatory sentencing provisions. This incl udes R.C. 2929.14(C)(2 ), which provides t hat: if an offender who is under detention at a detention facility commits a felony violation of section 2923.131 of the Revised Code, * * * any prison term imposed upon the offender * * * sha ll be served by the offender consecutively to the prison term or term of imprisonment the offender was serving when the offender committed that offense and to any other prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender. See, e.g., State v. Burke , 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. CA2018-T-0032 and 2018-T-0035, 2019- Ohio-1951, ¶ 146 ("[appellant] challenges the consecutive natur e of the sentence. However, the trial court was required, as a matter of law, to o rder any sentence imposed for this charge, a felony violation of R.C. 2923.131, to run co nsecutively to the sentence imposed in case No. 2017 CR 403"). {¶ 10} Therefore, because (1) both Lenneman and the state agreed to th e jointly recommended sentence, (2) the trial court imposed the jointly r ecommended sentence, and (3) the jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law, the trial court's decision to sentence Lenneman to the agreed upon sentence consecutive to hi s current term of incarceration is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Acco rdingly, because the trialMadison CA2020-12-022

- 5 - court's sentencing decision is not reviewable by this court und er R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Lenneman's single assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 11} Judgment affirmed.

PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.