[Cite as State v. Martin, 2011-Ohio-4670.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO : 

: Appellate Case No. 24398 

Plaintiff-Appellee : 

: Trial Court Case No. 10-CR-2014 

v. : 

: (Criminal Appeal from 

AMBER L. MARTIN : (Common Pleas Court) 

: 

Defendant-Appellant : 

: 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 16th day of September, 2011. 

. . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. #0069384, Montgomery 

County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. 

Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee 

RICHARD B. REILING, Atty. #0066118, 5045 North Main Street, Suite 320-D, Dayton, 

Ohio 45415 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . 

HALL, J. 

{¶ 1} Amber Martin appeals from her conviction and sentence on one count of 

felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11. 

{¶ 2} In her sole assignment of error, Martin contends the trial court erred in 
2

imposing a sentence that was inconsistent with and disproportionate to the sentence a 

co-defendant received. 

{¶ 3} The record reflects that Martin and co-defendant Carolyn Carr were charged 

with felonious assault and disrupting public services for their role in a fight that resulted in the 

victim suffering a broken jaw and cheek bone. Martin and Carr pled guilty to felonious assault 

in separate cases, and the prosecutor nolled the other charge. The trial court sentenced Carr to 

community control. It later sentenced Martin to two years in prison. At Martin’s sentencing 

hearing, the trial court stated that the prison sentence was being imposed for reasons detailed 

in a pre-sentence investigation report. 

{¶ 4} On appeal, Martin contends “the trial court did not properly engage in an 

evaluation of the proportionality of [her] case to those who have been similarly convicted and 

sentenced.” More specifically, she claims the trial court “did not consider the punishment 

imposed upon the co-defendant in this case.” Because the record does not reflect which 

co-defendant bore primary responsibility for the victim’s injuries, Martin argues that “there 

seems to be no reason to sentence [her] to prison while sentencing Carr to community control 

sanctions.” 

{¶ 5} Upon review, we find Martin’s argument to be without merit. “With respect to 

proportionality and consistency in felony sentencing, R.C. 2929.11(B) states that sentence 

shall be ‘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.’ ” State v. Cline, Champaign App. No. 07CA02, 

2008-Ohio-1866, ¶106. (Emphasis added.) “ ‘Consistency requires a trial court to weigh the 
3

same factors for each defendant, which ultimately results in an outcome that is rational and 

predictable.’ ” State v. Spradling, Montgomery App. No. 20960, 2005-Ohio-6683, ¶6, 

quoting State v. Coburn, Adams App. No. 03CA774, 2004-Ohio-2997. Consistency does not 

require uniformity. Id. 

{¶ 6} Given that the record does not indicate which, if either, co-defendant inflicted 

the most harm on the victim, we agree with Martin that she and Carr committed similar 

crimes. Indeed, they both pled guilty to felonious assault for engaging in the same fight with 

the same victim. Martin’s sentencing argument fails, however, because the record supports a 

finding that she and Carr are not similar offenders. Martin’s pre-sentence investigation report 

indicates that, at the time of the current offense, she already was on community control due to 

a 2007 conviction for complicity to commit abduction. Unlike Martin, Carr’s pre-sentence 

investigation report reflects that she had no prior felony record and was not on community 

control when she committed the current offense. Therefore, the trial court reasonably could 

have concluded that the two women were not similarly situated offenders when it sentenced 

Martin to prison and Carr to community control. 

{¶ 7} Based on the reasoning set forth above, we overrule Martin’s assignment of 

error and affirm the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

FAIN and FROELICH, JJ., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

Andrew T. French 

Richard B. Reiling 

Hon. Mary L. Wiseman