[Cite as State v. Flanigan, 2019-Ohio-1682.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 LUCAS COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-18-1120 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201801355 

v. 

Robert Lamar Flanigan DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: May 3, 2019 

* * * * * 

 Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

SINGER, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Lamar Flanigan, appeals from the May 8, 2018 judgment 

of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, where he was sentenced to five years of 

incarceration for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and (B), a felony of the 

second degree. Finding no error, we affirm. 
2. 

Background 

{¶ 2} Appellant was alleged to have grabbed a Marco’s Pizza employee as she left 

work, forcing her back into the restaurant. He then forced employees into the bathroom 

and proceeded to rob the restaurant, getting away with $200. 

{¶ 3} On February 27, 2018, appellee, the state of Ohio, indicted appellant for 

kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) and (C), a felony of the first degree, and 

for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and (B), a felony of the second degree. 

{¶ 4} Appellant initially pled not guilty, however, on April 17, 2018, he withdrew 

his not-guilty plea and pled guilty to the robbery. The court proceeded with its Crim.R. 

11 colloquy, found appellant made a knowing, voluntary plea, and accepted the plea. 

Appellee dismissed the kidnapping charge in exchange for the plea. The matter was set 

for sentencing on April 30, 2018. 

{¶ 5} The trial court sentenced appellant to five years in prison for the robbery. 

The judgment entry was e-journalized on May 8, 2018, and appellant timely appeals. 

Assignment of Error 

{¶ 6} Appellant asserts the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 

2929.12, when imposing his five-year prison sentence. Appellee contends the court 

considered the necessary criteria in compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. 

{¶ 7} Appellate courts review felony sentences under the standard set forth in R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2), which provides that an “appellate court may vacate or modify a felony 

sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record 

 
3. 

does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is 

otherwise contrary to law.” See State v Marcum, 146 Ohio St. 3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,

59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1. 

{¶ 8} R.C. 2929.11(A) provides, in pertinent part, “[t]he overriding purposes of 

felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others 

and to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions.” It follows, “the sentencing 

court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and 

others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim 

of the offense, the public, or both.” See R.C. 2929.11(A); State v. Craig, 6th Dist. Wood 

No. WD-14-061, 2015-Ohio-1479, ¶ 10. A felony sentence, therefore, “shall be 

reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes * * * set forth in [R.C. 

2929.11(A)], commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s 

conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar 

crimes committed by similar offenders.” See R.C. 2929.11(B); Craig. 

{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.12(A) pertinently provides, “a court that imposes a sentence 

under this chapter upon an offender for a felony has discretion to determine the most 

effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.” In this 

determination, “R.C. 2929.12 provides a non-exhaustive list of factors the court must 

consider in determining the relative seriousness of the underlying crime and the 

likelihood that the defendant will commit another offense in the future.” State v. 

Kronenberg, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101403, 2015-Ohio-1020, ¶ 26. “The factors 

include: (1) the physical, psychological, and economic harm suffered by the victim, (2) 
4. 

the defendant’s prior criminal record, (3) whether the defendant shows any remorse, and 

(4) any other relevant factors.” Id. 

{¶ 10} A sentencing court is not required to use specific language or make specific 

findings to demonstrate that it considered the applicable sentencing criteria under R.C. 

2929.11 and 2929.12. See State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793 

(2000). 

{¶ 11} At the April 30, 2018 sentencing hearing in this case, the trial court 

elaborated on the criteria it considered, as follows: 

Sentencing hearing having been held pursuant to Revised Code 

2929.19, this Defendant was afforded all rights he is entitled to under 

Criminal Rule 32. I’ve considered your records, statements you’ve made, 

the presentence report that was prepared, I’ve considered the principles and 

purposes of sentencing under 2929.11. 

I’ve balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors as I’m obligated 

to do under 2929.12. Again, this Defendant on April 17th entered a plea of 

guilty to Count 2 Robbery, a felony of the second degree. 

It is the sentence of the Court that you are ordered to serve a term of 

five years with the Ohio Department Rehabilitation and Corrections. 

{¶ 12} Further, the May 8, 2018 sentencing journal entry states: “The court has 

considered the record, oral statements, any victim impact statement and presentence 

report prepared, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, 
5. 

and has balanced the seriousness, recidivism and other relevant factors under R.C. 

2929.12.” 

{¶ 13} Based on the statements made at sentencing and in the sentencing entry, we 

hold the trial court considered the relevant sentencing criteria and complied with R.C. 

2929.11 and 2929.12. Appellant fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that the 

record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that his 

sentence is otherwise contrary to law. 

{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 15} The May 8, 2018 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is 

affirmed. Appellant 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. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

_______________________________ 

Thomas J. Osowik, 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/.