[Cite as State v. Carter , 2021-Ohio-3770.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-21-1025 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201801332

v. Cavelli D. Carter DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: October 22, 2021

* * * * * Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appel lee. Adam H. Houser, for appellant.

* * * * * DUHART, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the January 22, 2021 judgment 1 of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas which, following appellant, Cavelli Carte r’s admission to a

1 Appellant also appealed the nunc pro tunc judgment entry, journ alized on January 27, 2021, which added language reflecting the brief stay of his sen tence.2. community control violation, sentenced him to a total of 41 mon ths of imprisonment. Because we find no error, we affirm. Procedural History {¶ 2} On August 20, 2018, appellant was sentenced on one count of tra fficking in cocaine, a third-degree felony, and one count of trafficking in marijuana, a fifth-degree felony. Appellant was sentenced to five years of community con trol with multiple conditions. Appellant was informed that a violation of communi ty control would “lead to a longer or more restrictive sanction for defendant, including a prison term of 30 months

as to count 1 and 11 months as to count 5 to be served consecut ively.” {¶ 3} On February 19, 2020, after admitting to a community control vi olation, appellant’s community control was ordered continued with the ad ditional condition that he be committed to CTF for six months and comply with aftercare guidelines. Appellant was again found to be in violation of community control and on July 24, 2020, he was continued on community control with added conditions. {¶ 4} Appellant admitted a third community control violation and the sentencing hearing was held on January 20, 2021. At that time, appellant’ s community control was terminated and he was sentenced to his original sentence of 30 months in prison for the trafficking in cocaine charge and 11 months in prison for traff icking in marijuana. The terms were ordered to be served consecutively. The sentencing judgment entry was journalized on January 22, 2021, and this appeal followed.3. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court failed to follow the princip[les] and purpo ses of Ohio law when it sentenced appellant to consecutive sentences. 2. The revocation of appellant’s community control was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Analysis {¶ 5} Appellant’s first assignment of error contends that the trial c ourt failed to properly consider the principles and purposes of Ohio felony se ntencing and that the court erred by ordering appellant’s sentences to run consecutiv ely. Reviewing a challenge to a felony sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), we may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a sentence upon finding either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s fin dings 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 Revi sed Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. {¶ 6} As to our review of the court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08( G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the reco rd and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence th at best reflects compliance4. with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones , 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42. Stated otherwise, “R.C. 2953.08, as amen ded, precludes secondguessing a sentence imposed by a trial court based on its weigh ing of the considerations

in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Toles , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3531, ¶ 10 (Brunner, J., concurring.) {¶ 7} Also relevant here, prior to imposing a consecutive sentence un der R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the court must find consecutive sentences are “n ecessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender,” “consecuti ve sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct a nd to the danger the offender poses to the public,” and that one of the circumstance s under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) is present. Such circumstances include: (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense. (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as par t of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or m ore of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’ s conduct.5. (c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates tha t consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. {¶ 8} The trial court must engage in the correct analysis, state its statutory findings during the sentencing hearing, and incorporate those findings i nto its sentencing entry. (Emphasis added.) State v. Beasley , 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-493, 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 253, citing State v. Bonnell , 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37. A word-for-word recitation of the statutory languag e is not required so long as the record supports the trial court’s findings. Beasley at ¶ 259. {¶ 9} In the present case, at the sentencing hearing and in the Janua ry 22, 2021 judgment entry, the trial court explicitly stated that it had c onsidered the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and had balanced the seriousness and

recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. Under Jones , 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, at ¶ 42, we are not permitted to independ ently weigh the evidence behind the court’s findings. {¶ 10} Next, imposing a consecutive sentence, the court stated: These sentences are ordered to be served consecutively to one another, this being necessary to fulfill the purposes of Revise d Code 2929.11 and 2929.14[C] and not disproportionate to the seriousn ess of the offender’s conduct or the danger the offender poses, and the Co urt finds to6. protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender, and your criminal history certainly requires the consecutive sentence. {¶ 11} Similarly, the sentencing judgment entry states: Being necessary to fulfill the purposes of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.14(C)(4), consecutive sentence[s] are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and are not disprop ortionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. The court further finds the defendant’s c riminal history demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protec t the public, therefore the sentences are ordered to be served consecutively. {¶ 12} Reviewing the sentencing hearing and judgment entry, we find th at the trial court recited the necessary statutory language and found that a ppellant’s criminal history, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), supported the imposition of consecutive sentences. Beasley , at ¶ 253. Further, the sentence imposed was within the statutorily permissible range. Thus, appellant’s sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken. {¶ 13} In appellant’s second assignment of error, he argues that the c ourt’s revocation of his community control was against the weight of t he evidence. Appellant again asserts that the court failed to follow the principles an d purposes of felony sentencing.7. {¶ 14} Initially we note that our review of a trial court’s decision t o revoke community control is for an abuse of discretion, we do not cond uct a manifest weight of the evidence analysis. State v. Clark , 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-12-073, 2013-Ohio-4831, ¶ 15. Thus, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision revo king an offender’s community control sanction if the record contains substantial e vidence of the violation, consisting of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but less t han a preponderance of

evidence. Id. {¶ 15} After reviewing the record in this matter, we note that this wa s appellant’s third community control violation, community control could have been revoked following the first violation. Appellant was given multiple op portunities to successfully complete his non-prison sentence. The court noted that appella nt had not been in contact with the probation department for a few months and that a urine sample he provided was not the correct temperature, thus evidencing intentional dishon esty. {¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did no t abuse its discretion when it revoked appellant’s community control. Appe llant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.8. Conclusion {¶ 17} The January 22, 2021 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Comm on Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal. Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pu rsuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ___________________________

_ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J.

____________________________ Myron C. Duhart, 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/.