[Cite as State v. Harris, 2019-Ohio-4711.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 WOOD COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-18-077 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 2015CR0174 

v. 

Micah Harris DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: November 15, 2019 

* * * * * 

 Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

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

 Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

 MAYLE, P.J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Micah Harris, appeals the September 11, 2018 judgment of the 

Wood County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to 12 months in prison following 

his violation of previously imposed community control conditions. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
2.

I. Background 

{¶ 2} On May 7, 2015, appellant Micah Harris was indicted on one count of 

trafficking in marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(3)(a), a fifth-degree 

felony, with a forfeiture specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A). Harris was 

arraigned on May 12, 2015. He subsequently entered a guilty plea on July 20, 2015. At 

that time, and pursuant to R.C. 2951.041, the trial court agreed to Harris’s request for 

intervention in lieu of conviction. The trial court ordered appellant to refrain from 

alcohol consumption and attend an alcohol treatment program for one year as the terms of 

his intervention. Harris did not object to the terms and the trial court stayed all 

proceedings pending appellant’s completion of the intervention program. 

{¶ 3} On December 11, 2015, Harris appeared before the trial court for a hearing 

on an alleged violation of the conditions of his intervention in lieu of conviction—the 

consumption of alcohol. While Harris stipulated to the violation, the trial court agreed to 

continue appellant’s intervention under the same conditions. Harris again appeared 

before the trial court on July 1, 2016, following the state’s allegation that appellant again 

consumed alcohol in violation of the terms of his intervention program. The trial court 

determined Harris had consumed alcohol and terminated appellant’s intervention. With 

intervention terminated, the trial court found Harris guilty of trafficking in marijuana, the 

sole count in the original indictment, based on his previous guilty plea. On August 12, 

2016, the trial court sentenced appellant to community control for a period of 2 years and 

notified him that violation of community control terms could lead to a prison term of 12 
3.

months. While on community control, appellant was ordered to complete an alcohol 

treatment program and not to consume alcohol. The trial court also suspended 

appellant’s driver’s license for six months with driving privileges granted for 

employment, treatment, and probation. 

{¶ 4} On November 4, 2016, Harris appeared before the trial court for a hearing on 

a community control violation following a conviction for underage consumption. The 

trial court did not revoke Harris’s community control but did order two months of 

electronic alcohol monitoring to ensure Harris’s compliance with the no alcohol 

consumption term of his community control. 

{¶ 5} Harris again appeared before the trial court on September 5, 2017, for a 

hearing on a community control violation based on his consumption of alcohol. Harris 

stipulated to the violation and requested the trial court proceed to disposition. The trial 

court again continued Harris’s community control but imposed additional conditions 

including the completion of an alcohol abuse treatment program, drug and mental health 

screenings, and the completion of any recommended treatment arising from those 

screenings. 

{¶ 6} Finally, on September 11, 2018, Harris appeared before the trial court on 

another violation of the community control provisions. Harris stipulated to the violation 

in that he had moved to Southern Ohio and absconded from the probation department’s 

supervision of his community control conditions. The trial court accepted the stipulated 
4.

violation, revoked Harris’s community control, and imposed the 12-month prison 

sentence. Harris appealed and asserts a single assignment of error: 

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

sentencing Appellant to twelve months in the Ohio Department of

Rehabilitation & Corrections instead of ordering community control 

sanctions. 

II. Law and Analysis 

{¶ 7} Harris argues his sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed 

to “follow the directives of either R.C. 2929.11, The Purposes and Principles of 

Sentencing or R.C. 2929.12, Seriousness and Recidivism Factors” when determining the 

appropriate sentence. We review felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. 

Goings, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1103, 2014-Ohio-2322, ¶ 20. We may increase, 

modify, or vacate and remand a judgment only if we clearly and convincingly find either 

of the following: “(a) the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under 

division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or 

division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant” or 

“(b) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Yeager, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. 

S-15-025, 2016-Ohio-4759, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). 

{¶ 8} Appellant bears the burden of identifying clear and convincing evidence the 

sentence imposed was contrary to law. State v. Williams, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1083, 

2014-Ohio-3624, at ¶ 7-11, 16, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). A felony sentence is contrary to law 
5.

if the trial court, as appellant argues here, failed to consider the purposes of felony 

sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth 

in R.C. 2929.12 when determining the appropriate sentence. Id. at ¶ 8. A trial court’s 

statement that it has considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in determining a sentence is 

sufficient to show the trial court’s compliance with these requirements. State v. 

Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524, 2011-Ohio-5032, 960 N.E.2d 1042, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.). 

If the trial court fails to specifically state that it followed these statutes, it is still 

presumed that the trial court gave proper consideration to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. 

Yeager at ¶ 13, citing State v. Sims, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-13-037, 2014-Ohio-3515, 

¶ 10. Indeed, this presumption applies even if the trial court fails to reference R.C. 

2929.11 and 2929.12 at both the sentencing hearing and in the subsequent sentencing 

entry. State v. Perkins, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-18-010, 2019-Ohio-2049, ¶ 22, citing 

State v. Seele, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-13-025, 2014-Ohio-1455, ¶ 19 (applying the 

presumption where “the trial court did not specifically indicate either at sentencing or in 

its judgment entry that it considered these statutes.”) The burden is on the appellant to 

rebut this presumption. Yeager at ¶ 13, citing State v. Smith, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. 

S-14-037, 2015-Ohio-1867, ¶ 11. Appellant’s rebuttal must be supported with clear and 

convincing evidence. See Williams at ¶ 7-11; 16, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). 

{¶ 9} Here, Harris argues that “[a]lthough the judgment entry in this case 

references R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the court made no mention of it’s [sic] 

consideration of the statutes at appellant’s sentencing hearing[.]” Harris, however, fails 
6.

to identify any evidence—let alone clear and convincing evidence—to rebut the 

presumption that the trial court nonetheless considered the necessary sentencing factors 

under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 at the sentencing hearing. 

{¶ 10} Moreover, the sentencing entry clearly states that the trial court considered 

R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when it determined Harris’s sentence. It stated: 

 after consideration of any additional relevant factors and the

recidivism and seriousness factors under R.C. 2929.12, the Court finds that 

a prison term is consistent, based upon the overriding purposes and 

principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11. Further, the Court finds 

the Defendant is no longer amenable to any available community control 

sanction and is unsuccessfully terminated from community control. 

The trial court is “not obligated to give a detailed explanation of how it algebraically 

applied each seriousness and recidivism factor to the offender. Indeed, no specific 

recitation is required.” Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524, 2011-Ohio-5032, 960 

N.E.2d 1042, at ¶ 11, citing State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793 

(2000). The trial court’s statement that it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in 

determining the sentence is sufficient to show its compliance with these requirements. 

Id. 

{¶ 11} Despite this, Harris claims that “the trial court did not consider mitigating 

factors or Appellant’s need for mental health counseling and treatment[.]” That is, Harris 

claims that he acknowledged his crime was compelled by drug addiction, that he 
7.

expressed genuine remorse, that he wished to continue mental health treatment, and that 

he has “minimal” criminal history. He argues these factors weigh in his favor under R.C. 

2929.12(D)(4), 2929.12(D)(5), and 2929.12(E). Harris also argues that none of the R.C. 

2929.12(B) seriousness factors are applicable to his case. Essentially, Harris argues that 

because the factors he believes weighed in his favor did not result in his desired lesser 

sentence—the continuation of community control—the trial court must have given those 

factors insufficient weight. 

{¶ 12} The trial court, however, has the sole discretion to determine the weight 

afforded to any particular statutory factor when imposing a felony sentence. State v. 

Stubbs, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-810, 2014-Ohio-3696, ¶ 16. Further, the trial court 

was not required to provide any recitation as to how it weighed these factors. Id. 

Harris’s failure to receive the desired result does not mean the factors were not 

considered and weighed by the trial court. 

{¶ 13} The trial court’s statement that it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in 

determining appellant’s sentence is sufficient to show its compliance with those 

requirements. Brimacombe at ¶ 11. Appellant identifies no evidence to support his 

contention the sentence imposed was contrary to law and fails to satisfy his burden as 

established in R.C. 2953.08(G). The trial court did not err in imposing appellant’s 

12-month prison sentence. 

 
8.

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 14} We find appellant’s assignment of error not well-taken. The trial court 

properly considered the purposes and principals of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 

the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, and Harris presented no clear 

and convincing evidence that the sentence was contrary to law. We affirm the 

September 11, 2018 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas. Harris 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. 

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/.