[Cite as State v. Julious, 2016-Ohio-4822.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 CASE NO. CA2015-12-224 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 O P I N I O N 

 : 7/5/2016 

 - vs - 

 : 

SHAWN D. JULIOUS, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR15-09-1420 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Christopher P. Frederick, 304 North Second Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendantappellant 

 S. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shawn D. Julious, appeals from the sentence he received 

in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to one count of felonious 

assault. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm. 

{¶ 2} On October 14, 2015, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment 

charging Julious with one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a 
Butler CA2015-12-224 

 - 2 - 

second-degree felony. According to the bill of particulars, the charge stemmed from 

allegations that during the early morning hours of September 10, 2015, Julious knowingly 

caused serious physical harm to the victim "by slamming her head into a pallet of upright 

standing shock absorbers resulting in a fracture of her nose and severe laceration to her 

forehead" while working at ThyssenKrup North America, Inc., in Hamilton, Ohio. Julious 

subsequently pled guilty and the matter was scheduled for a sentencing hearing on 

December 14, 2015. 

{¶ 3} Prior to the sentencing hearing, the state submitted a sentencing memorandum 

that noted Julious' conduct had caused the victim to suffer a significant injury that resulted in 

severe pain and "a permanent disfiguring scar extending vertically from her hairline to the 

bridge of her nose." The state also noted that Julious' attack was completely unprovoked. 

According to the state, "[a]pparently [Julious] believed that the victim and a co-worker, both 

Filipinos, were talking about him in their native language, Tag[a]log. [Julious] became irate 

and grabbed the victim by her hair and slammed her head into a pallet of upright standing 

shock absorbers." The state further noted that Julious had a lengthy criminal history in Ohio 

that consisted of convictions for domestic violence and carrying a concealed weapon, as well 

as several convictions in Georgia for possession of a controlled substance and pointing or 

aiming a gun at another. 

{¶ 4} At the sentencing hearing, Julious' trial counsel informed the trial court that 

Julious was remorseful for his actions and noted that Julious had taken responsibility for his 

conduct by pleading guilty. Julious' trial counsel also notified the court that Julious suffered 

from untreated substance abuse and mental health issues. Nevertheless, after considering 

this evidence, the trial court sentenced Julious to the maximum eight-year prison term for a 

second-degree felony in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(A)(2). In so holding, the trial court 

noted Julious' lengthy criminal history and found Julious "has [a] propensity to commit 
Butler CA2015-12-224 

 - 3 - 

offenses" that "pose[] a danger to the public." The trial court later incorporated these findings 

within its sentencing entry and specifically stated that it had considered "the principles and 

purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.11, and ha[d] balanced the 

seriousness and recidivism factors of Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.12[.]" The trial court 

also properly notified Julious that he would be subject to a mandatory three-year postrelease 

control term. 

{¶ 5} Julious now appeals from the trial court's decision, raising the following single 

assignment of error for review. 

{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. JULIOUS WHEN 

IT SENTENCED HIM TO A TERM OF EIGHT YEARS IN THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS. 

{¶ 7} In his single assignment of error, Julious argues the trial court erred by 

sentencing him to the maximum term of eight years in prison. We disagree. 

{¶ 8} As with all felony sentences, we review this sentence under the standard of 

review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Crawford, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-

12-088, 2013-Ohio-3315, ¶ 6. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court does not review 

the sentencing court's decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Marcum, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 10. Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) compels an appellate court to modify or 

vacate a sentence only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that "the 

record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence 

is otherwise contrary to law." Id. at ¶ 1. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary 

to law where trial court "considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the 

factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the 

defendant within the permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2015-06-100, 2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 8. 
Butler CA2015-12-224 

 - 4 - 

{¶ 9} Moreover, even in those cases where the sentence imposed does not require 

any of the statutory findings specifically addressed within R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate 

court will nevertheless review those sentences "under a standard that is equally deferential to 

the sentencing court." Marcum at ¶ 23. "That is, an appellate court may vacate or modify 

any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court 

finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence." Id. 

Thus, this court may "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly 

and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the 

record." State v. Brandenburg, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2970, ¶ 1, citing Id. at ¶ 7. 

{¶ 10} In this case, Julious claims the trial court's decision to sentence him to the 

maximum term of eight years in prison was improper and indicates the trial court did not give 

the necessary consideration to the overriding principles and purposes of felony sentencing 

under R.C. 2929.11, nor to the statutory factors of felony sentencing as listed in R.C. 

2929.12. Julious also argues the record does not support the trial court's sentencing 

decision given the fact that his conduct was merely a "one-time push of the victim's head" 

that did not cause her life threatening injuries. Julious further claims the trial court's 

sentencing decision was improper since he appeared remorseful, took responsibility for his 

actions by pleading guilty, and suffers from untreated substance abuse and mental health 

issues. 

{¶ 11} After a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the trial court's 

decision to sentence Julious to the maximum eight-year prison term. As the record plainly 

reveals, Julious' sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the trial 

court properly considered the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors 

listed in R.C. 2929.12, imposed the required mandatory three-year postrelease control term, 

and sentenced Julious within the permissible statutory range for a second-degree felony in 
Butler CA2015-12-224 

 - 5 - 

accordance with R.C. 2929.14(A)(2). The fact that the trial court did not expressly cite to 

R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 during the sentencing hearing is immaterial, considering it 

specifically cited to both statutes within its sentencing entry. State v. Peck, 12th Dist. Butler 

No. CA2015-06-123, 2016-Ohio-1578, ¶ 9. The trial court's sentencing entry also explicitly 

stated that it had considered "the record, the charges, the defendant's Guilty Plea, and 

findings as set forth on the record and herein, oral statements, any victim impact statement 

and pre-sentence report[.]" 

{¶ 12} The record also supports the trial court's sentencing decision, as it is clear that 

Julious committed a vicious and unprovoked attack on a female co-worker that caused her to 

suffer significant permanent injuries to her face. This senseless act indicates Julious is not 

amenable to community control sanctions since he clearly cannot control his violent 

tendencies and aggressions. State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2015-05-012, 2016-

Ohio-2777, ¶ 37. Furthermore, just as the trial court found, Julious has a lengthy criminal 

history in both Ohio and Georgia that includes convictions for domestic violence and carrying 

a concealed weapon. This indicates Julious has a propensity for violent criminal activity that 

creates a significant and continued danger to the public. Therefore, because we find Julious' 

sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law, and because the record fully 

supports the trial court's sentencing decision, Julious' single assignment of error is without 

merit and overruled. 

{¶ 13} Judgment affirmed. 

 PIPER, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.