[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 j udgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant t o 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 the2. purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the a pplicable 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 co ntrol

sanctions. {¶ 3} On May 3, 2018, appellant was indicted on one count of grand th eft 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 othe r men who asked him to cash the checks. In return, appellant was to receive ten perce nt of the check proceeds. {¶ 4} Following a plea bargain, appellant pled guilty to an amended c ount of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2), a felony of the fif th 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 reportwas created and reviewed by the trial court. {¶ 5} On October 9, 2018, appellant was sentenced to three years of c ommunity control on both counts. As part of community control, appellan t was required to3. complete the SEARCH program and pay $4,407.31 in restitution. The trial court notified appellant that violation of the community control conditions co uld 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. Appellan t was removed for consistently stating to staff and other program participants th at 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 pe tition for revocation of appellant’s community control due to his removal from the pr ogram. {¶ 7} On November 27, 2018, appellant appeared in court in response t o the petition and waived representation of counsel. Appellant stipu lated that he violated the terms and conditions of his community control. At his hearing, the trial court unsuccessfully terminated appellant from community control on t he one count of theft and sentenced appellant to an 11-month term of imprisonment. A ppellant was ordered to remain on community control for three years on the remaining ch arge. Law and Analysis {¶ 8} A trial court may impose any sentence that falls within the sen tencing 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 appel late court must determine whether the sentence is supported by clear and convin cing evidence and whether the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); Salman at ¶ 4. Appellant4. contends that his sentence was contrary to law because the tria l court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.12(C)(4) for failing to consider mitigating fact ors in this case. Salman at ¶ 4. {¶ 9} The trial court must use its discretion to impose the appropria te sentence which achieves the purposes of protecting the public and punish ing 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 consid er the need for incapacitating the defendant, methods of deterrence, rehabilita tion, 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 find ings 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 showi ng 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 pri son term because there is a presumption against imprisonment for felonie s of the fifth degree, the trial court failed to consider any mitigating factors before im posing the prison term, and the trial court did not consider appellant’ s mental issues dur ing his brief time at the SEARCH program. Appellant argues the trial court should have a ttempted to discern5. 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 nervo us breakdown during his short time at SEARCH which contributed to his statements that would lead to his removal from the program. Appellant also sta ted 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 be gan 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 o nly received three weekly incentives and two character coupons. {¶ 14} The trial court terminated appellant’s community control sancti ons and imposed a prison term. The sentencing entry in this matter sta tes that the trial court considered the required purposes and factors in R.C. 2929.11 an d 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 l eave the program. {¶ 15} Appellant’s sentence of 11 months was within the statutory rang e for a felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2929.14(A)(4). At the Octobe r sentencing hearing, the trial court heard from appellant, heard from the victim, and re viewed a presentence investigation report that contained appellant’ s criminal histo ry. At the November6. sentencing hearing, the trial court considered appellant’ s sta tements 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 cour t considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the required factors in R.C. 2 929.12. There is no indication that the trial court failed to consider mitigating f actors or ignored appellant’s statement in the record. The trial court explained that appell ant’s actions lead to his removal from the SEARCH program and therefore he had violated t he conditions of his community control sanctions. {¶ 16} Given the trial court’ s explanations for the 11-month prison t erm, the fact that the sentence fell within the range of permissible sentence s, and the presumption that the court properly balanced the principles and purposes of sent encing and considered all other factors in R.C. 2929.12, we find that appellant’s sentenc e 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 Cou rt of Common Pleas. The costs of this appeal are assessed to appella nt pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant 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 Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.