[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2019-Ohio-4902.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 WOOD COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-18-083 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 2018CR164 

v. 

Sean Donta Robinson DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: November 27, 2019 

* * * * * 

 Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

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

 Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

 SINGER, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Sean Donta Robinson, appeals the November 27, 2019 judgment 

of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant to an 11-month term 

of imprisonment for violating appellant’ s community control. We affirm because 

appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law and the trial court properly considered the 
2.

purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the applicable factors in R.C. 

2929.12. 

{¶ 2} Appellant brings forth one assignment of error: 

 The trial court did not comply with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 

in sentencing appellant to eleven months in the Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Corrections instead of ordering community control 

sanctions. 

{¶ 3} On May 3, 2018, appellant was indicted on one count of grand theft in 

violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2), a felony of the fourth degree and two counts of 

forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), (C)(1)(b)(i), both felonies of the fourth 

degree. Appellant was accused of attempting to cash an illegal check to himself and 

cashing checks that belonged to a company without the company’s permission. 

Appellant would later state he was given the checks by two other men who asked him to 

cash the checks. In return, appellant was to receive ten percent of the check proceeds. 

{¶ 4} Following a plea bargain, appellant pled guilty to an amended count of theft 

in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count 

forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), (C)(1)(b), a felony of the fifth degree. The 

third charge was dismissed. A presentence investigation report was created and reviewed 

by the trial court. 

{¶ 5} On October 9, 2018, appellant was sentenced to three years of community 

control on both counts. As part of community control, appellant was required to 
3.

complete the SEARCH program and pay $4,407.31 in restitution. The trial court notified 

appellant that violation of the community control conditions could lead to the imposition 

of a prison term of 12 months on each charge. 

{¶ 6} Appellant entered the SEARCH program shortly after sentencing, but 

appellant was removed from the program after 15 days. Appellant was removed for 

consistently stating to staff and other program participants that he did not want to be in 

the program and that he wanted to leave. Appellant also failed to participate fully in the 

program. The Wood County Adult Probation Department filed a petition for revocation 

of appellant’s community control due to his removal from the program. 

{¶ 7} On November 27, 2018, appellant appeared in court in response to the 

petition and waived representation of counsel. Appellant stipulated that he violated the 

terms and conditions of his community control. At his hearing, the trial court 

unsuccessfully terminated appellant from community control on the one count of theft 

and sentenced appellant to an 11-month term of imprisonment. Appellant was ordered to 

remain on community control for three years on the remaining charge. 

Law and Analysis 

{¶ 8} A trial court may impose any sentence that falls within the sentencing range 

for the degree of felony involved. R.C. 2929.12(A); 2929.13(A); 2929.14(A); State v. 

Salman, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1223, 2018-Ohio-3516, ¶ 4. An appellate court must 

determine whether the sentence is supported by clear and convincing evidence and 

whether the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); Salman at ¶ 4. Appellant 
4.

contends that his sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to comply 

with R.C. 2929.12(C)(4) for failing to consider mitigating factors in this case. Salman at 

¶ 4. 

{¶ 9} The trial court must use its discretion to impose the appropriate sentence 

which achieves the purposes of protecting the public and punishing the defendant, while 

imposing a sentence that does not unnecessarily burden state or local government 

resources. R.C. 2929.11(A); R.C. 2929.12(A); R.C. 2929.13(A); Salman at ¶ 5. “ To 

achieve the purposes of felony sentencing, the court may consider the need for 

incapacitating the defendant, methods of deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution, the 

seriousness of the defendant’ s conduct, and mitigating factors.” Salman at ¶ 5, citing 

R.C. 2929.11(A) and 2929.12. 

{¶ 10} There is no requirement that the trial court make specific findings to reflect 

its consideration of applicable statutory factors. Id., citing State v. O’ Dell, 45 Ohio St.3d 

140, 147, 543 N.E.2d 1220 (1989). “Absent an affirmative showing to the contrary, we 

presume the court properly considered the relevant factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 

2929.12.” Id. 

{¶ 11} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing the prison term 

because there is a presumption against imprisonment for felonies of the fifth degree, the 

trial court failed to consider any mitigating factors before imposing the prison term, and 

the trial court did not consider appellant’ s mental issues during his brief time at the 

SEARCH program. Appellant argues the trial court should have attempted to discern 
5.

why appellant was removed from the SEARCH program and tailored a sentence to 

alleviate any of those barriers. Appellee argue that the trial court complied with R.C. 

2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing its sentence. 

{¶ 12} At the sentencing hearing, appellant stated that he had a nervous 

breakdown during his short time at SEARCH which contributed to his statements that 

would lead to his removal from the program. Appellant also stated that he was in 

counseling, going to AA meetings, and following all other rules laid down by the court. 

Appellant argued that he had one nervous breakdown, but then began to earnestly 

participate in the program. 

{¶ 13} Appellee responded by stating that appellant asked to leave the program, 

only attended one session during his stay at the program, and only received three weekly 

incentives and two character coupons. 

{¶ 14} The trial court terminated appellant’s community control sanctions and 

imposed a prison term. The sentencing entry in this matter states that the trial court 

considered the required purposes and factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial 

court found that appellant failed to participate in the SEARCH program and determined 

that it was inappropriate for appellant to state he wanted to leave the program. 

{¶ 15} Appellant’s sentence of 11 months was within the statutory range for a 

felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2929.14(A)(4). At the October sentencing hearing, the 

trial court heard from appellant, heard from the victim, and reviewed a presentence 

investigation report that contained appellant’ s criminal history. At the November 
6.

sentencing hearing, the trial court considered appellant’ s statements and reflected in its 

sentencing entry its consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and considerations in 

R.C. 2929.12. The record contains evidence that the trial court considered the purposes 

and principles of sentencing and the required factors in R.C. 2929.12. There is no 

indication that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors or ignored appellant’s 

statement in the record. The trial court explained that appellant’s actions lead to his 

removal from the SEARCH program and therefore he had violated the conditions of his 

community control sanctions. 

{¶ 16} Given the trial court’ s explanations for the 11-month prison term, the fact 

that the sentence fell within the range of permissible sentences, and the presumption that 

the court properly balanced the principles and purposes of sentencing and considered all 

other factors in R.C. 2929.12, we find that appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. 

Appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 17} We affirm the November 27, 2018 judgment of the Wood County Court of 

Common Pleas. The costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant 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. 

 
7.

 State v. Robinson 

 C.A. No. WD-18-083 

Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Christine E. Mayle, P.J. 

 _______________________________ 

Gene A. Zmuda, 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/.