[Cite as State v. Risenburg, 2014-Ohio-4347.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 SANDUSKY COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. S-14-011 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 13 CR 48 

v. 

Jason E. Risenburg DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: September 30, 2014 

* * * * * 

 Thomas L. Stierwalt, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, 

 and Norman P. Solze, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Brett A. Klimkowsky, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

PIETRYKOWSKI, J. 

{¶ 1} This appeal is before the court following the March 11, 2014 judgment of 

the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas which, following a guilty plea to 

involuntary manslaughter, sentenced defendant-appellant, Jason E. Risenburg, to 11 years 

in prison. Because we find that the sentence was supported by the record and not 

contrary to law, we affirm. 
2.

{¶ 2} On January 18, 2013, appellant was indicted on one count of murder, R.C. 

2903.02(A), one count of involuntary manslaughter, R.C. 2903.04(A), and one count of 

corrupting another with drugs, R.C. 2925.02(A)(3)(C)(1). The charges stemmed from the 

April 2, 2012 drug overdose death of appellant’s wife, Beth Risenburg. Appellant 

admitted to giving her a lethal dose of methadone which was prescribed to him for back 

pain. 

{¶ 3} On January 27, 2014, appellant withdrew his not guilty pleas and entered a 

plea of guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter. The remaining two counts were 

dismissed. A presentence investigation report was prepared and, on March 11, 2014, 

appellant was sentenced to the maximum of 11 years of imprisonment. This appeal 

followed. 

{¶ 4} Appellant raises the following assignment of error: 

 The trial court’s sentence is an abuse of discretion insofar as the trial 

court misapplied R.C. § 2929.11. 

{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court, in 

imposing a maximum sentence, failed to fully consider R.C. 2929.11. In particular, 

appellant contends that the court failed to state that it was required to impose the 

minimum sanction necessary in order to protect the public and punish the offender. 

{¶ 6} Our review of felony sentencing cases is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) 

which provides: 
3.

 (2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of 

this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the 

sentence or modification given by the sentencing court. 

 The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a 

sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and 

remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate 

court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its 

discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this 

division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: 

 (a) That 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; 

 (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. 

{¶ 7} Appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of voluntary manslaughter, a 

first degree felony with a sentencing range of three to eleven years. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1). 

Thus, as appellant concedes, the sentence was within the statutory range for the degree of 

the offense. Appellant contends, however, that the court failed to elucidate that a 

maximum prison term of 11 years was necessary to accomplish the principles and 

purposes of felony sentencing. 
4.

{¶ 8} R.C. 2929.11 provides, in part: 

 (A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided 

by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes 

of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the 

offender and others and to punish the offender using the minimum 

sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without 

imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources. 

To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for 

incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future 

crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of 

the offense, the public, or both. 

 (B) A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated 

to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in 

division (A) of this section, commensurate with and not demeaning to the 

seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim, and 

consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar 

offenders. 

{¶ 9} In the present case, the trial court noted that it had reviewed the thorough 

presentence investigation report and found that in sentencing appellant, the court’s “job is 

to attempt to protect the public from future crime and impose an appropriate punishment 

for the offense committed.” The court further noted that it had reviewed the seriousness 
5.

and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. This court has held that a sentencing court is 

not required to “give a detailed explanation” of how it applied each factor. State v. 

Redfern, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-12-014, 2013-Ohio-2480, ¶ 7. 

{¶ 10} Thus, based on our review of the record and the court’s compliance with 

R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we find that appellant’s sentence is supported by the record 

and it is not contrary to law. Appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 11} On consideration whereof, we find that appellant was not prejudiced or 

prevented from having a fair proceeding and the judgment of the Sandusky County Court 

of Common 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 pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

James D. Jensen, 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.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.