[Cite as State v. Kane , 2020-Ohio-5152.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- : : CRYSTINA KANE : Case No. 20-COA-012 : Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 18-CRI-070

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 2, 2020

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant CRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL BRIAN A. SMITH 110 Cottage Street 755 White Pond Drive Ashland, OH 44805 Suite 403 Akron, OH 44320Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-012 2

Wise, Earle, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Crystina Kane appeals the March 18, 2 020 judgment of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas which revoked her c ommunity control and imposed a previously suspended prison sentence. Plaintiff-Appel lee is the state of Ohio. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} A recitation of the underlying facts are unnecessary to o ur resolution of this appeal. In August of 2018, Kane was placed on community control for a period of three years following pleas of guilty to endangering children, a misd emeanor of the first degree, and aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the third degr ee, and suspended a 36- month prison sentence. The trial court imposed various resident ial and non-residential conditions upon Kane's community control. {¶ 3} Kane violated the conditions of her community control on two occasions. The first time, Kane entered admissions to her violations on Ju ne 18, 2019 and the trial court continued Kane on community control with additional requi rements. {¶ 4} The second time Kane violated the terms and conditions of her community control, during a hearing held on February 14, 2020, she entere d admissions to three of her violations. On this occasion, the trial court revoked Kane' s community control and sentenced her to 30 months incarceration with credit for 390 da ys served. {¶ 5} Kane timely appeals the revocation of her community contr ol advancing one assignment of error for our review:
I {¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE OF APPELLANT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD."Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-012 3 {¶ 7} In her sole assignment of error, Kane argues her sentence is not supported by the record because the trial court failed to properly consid er the purposes and principals of felony sentencing per R.C. 2929.11, and further f ailed to consider the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12 during the s entencing hearing following the revocation of her community control or in its sub sequent judgment entry. We disagree. {¶ 8} We review felony sentences using the standard of review s et forth in R.C. 2953.08. State v. Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, mod ify, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing where we clearly and convi ncingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court's findings und er R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is o therwise contrary to law. {¶ 9} Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence “which wil l provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to th e facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of t he syllabus. “Where the degree of proof required to sustain an iss ue must be clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record to determ ine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the requisit e degree of proof.” Cross , 161 Ohio St. at 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. {¶ 10} A sentence is not contrary to law when it is within the authorized statutory range and the trial court states that it has considered the pri nciples and purposes of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors. State v. Smith , 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 26307, 2016-Ohio-1269, ¶ 25.Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-012 4 {¶ 11} There is no language contained in R.C. 2929.11 which req uire the trial court to make any specific findings as to the purposes and principles of sentencing. State v. Wilson , 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669, 951 N.E.2d 381, ¶ 31. Lik ewise, R.C. 2929.12 does not require the trial court to “use specific langu age or make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of the applicable seriousness and recidivism factors.” State v. Arnett , 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000). Therefore, although there is a mandatory duty to “consider” the relevant statutory factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the sentencing court is not req uired to engage in any factual findings under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12. State v. Bement , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99914, 2013-Ohio-5437, ¶ 17; State v. Combs , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99852, 2014- Ohio-497, ¶ 52. {¶ 12} Against that background, we turn to Kane's sentencing. K ane has not provided this court with a transcript of her initial August 1, 2018 sentencing hearing. We therefore presume the regularity of the sentencing hearing and begin with Kane's August 1, 2018 sentencing judgment entry. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories , 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980); State v. Batstra , 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0052, 2017- Ohio-2665. {¶ 13} We find the August 1, 2018 entry specifically indicates the trial court considered the "* * * purposes of felony sentencing as set fort h in Section 2929.11. * * * In fashioning a sentence in this case, the Court has fully cons idered the provisions of O.R.C. Chapter 2929 * * *." Judgment Entry – Sentencing, August 1, 2018, page 2. At page 3 of the same judgment entry, the trial court went on to f ind:Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-012 5
Upon a consideration of the purposes and principals of the felo ny sentencing law and the statutory sentencing factors, * * *, the Court finds that the Defendant is amenable to community control sanct ions and that a community control sanction is consistent with the purposes and principals of the felony sentencing law of Ohio.

{¶ 14} We find this language adequate to reflect the trial cour t's consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. {¶ 15} Next, on June 18, 2019, after Kane admitted to violating the terms and conditions of her community control, the trial court in its Aug ust 1, 2019 Judgment Entry found "[based] on the purposes and principals of the felony sen tencing law of Ohio," Kane remained amenable to the continuance of community control sanct ions, and continued Kane on community control. Judgment Entry, August 1, 2019, page 1. A transcript of this hearing is also not included in the record. {¶ 16} Kane then violated the terms and conditions of her commu nity control a second time, and again admitted to her violations. On the recor d, the trial court noted Kane had demonstrated she does well with required programming w hile incarcerated, but fails to comply when left to her own devices. Transcript of San ctioning Hearing, March 16, 2020 at 5. The trial court went on to find Kane was no long er amenable to community control and revoked the same. Id. On March 18, 2019, the trial court issued its sentencing judgment entry which revoked Kane's community control and sente nced her to a 30- month term of incarceration. The judgment entry includes the fa ct that the trial courtAshland County, Case No. 20-COA-012 6 considered "the purposes and principals of Ohio felony sentenci ng law and the statutory sentencing factors * * *. " {¶ 17} While Kane specifically faults the trial court for faili ng to engage in a discussion of the appropriate factors, as discussed above, no d iscussion is required. We find the forgoing language, at each relevant juncture of the pr oceedings, adequate to reflect the trial court's consideration of the appropriate fact ors. {¶ 18} Kane further appears to argue that because she had compl ied with some terms of her community control, the trial court erred by revoki ng her community control. We review the trial court's decision to revoke community contro l under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. State v. Smith , Richland App. Nos. 94-CA-62, 94-CA-64, 1995WL557408 at 4. (Aug. 28, 1995). A trial court will not be d eemed to have abused its discretion unless its decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶ 19} We have previously stated the privilege of community con trol rests upon the defendant's compliance with the terms and conditions of communi ty control and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke th e privilege. (Emphasis added.) State v. Bell , 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57, 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist.1990). Here, Kane's community control was revoked after her second violation of the same. Upon full review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion. {¶ 20} Finally, while Kane concedes the trial court was not req uired to consider the technical nature of her violations, she nonetheless faults the trial court for failing to do so. Because Kane was sentenced for a felony of the third degree, th e sentencing limitations of R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i)-(ii) have no applicability here.Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-012 7 {¶ 21} The sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 22} The judgment of the Ashl and County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By Wise, Earle, J. Gwin, P.J. and Wise, John, J. concur.

EEW/rw