[Cite as State v. Denney, 2021-Ohio-2090.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs. 

DAWSON DENNEY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-200066 

TRIAL NO. B-1904673 

 O P I N I O N.

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 23, 2021 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and H. Keith Sauter, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant 

Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

2

MYERS, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Dawson Denney pled guilty to burglary, a felony 

of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), and was sentenced to three 

years in prison. Denney appeals his conviction, arguing in a single assignment of 

error that the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence. 

{¶2} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), we may modify or vacate a 

defendant’s sentence only if we clearly and convincingly find that the sentence is 

contrary to law or that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under 

certain enumerated statutes, including R.C. 2929.13(B), R.C. 2929.13(D), R.C. 

2929.14(B)(2)(e), R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and R.C. 2929.20(I). State v. Bronson, 1st 

Dist. Hamilton No. C-200151, 2021-Ohio-838, ¶ 2; State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 

516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22-23. 

{¶3} Here, Denney’s sentence fell within the available sentencing range for 

a felony of the third degree and was not contrary to law. And the trial court was not 

required to make any findings in this case prior to imposing sentence. 

{¶4} Denney contends that the sentence imposed does not comply with the 

principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and is not consistent with 

the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are 

not fact-finding statutes, and, absent an affirmative demonstration to the contrary, 

we will presume that the trial court considered them. State v. Anderson, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-190588, 2021-Ohio-293, ¶ 8. Here, the record indicates that the 

trial court considered these statutes prior to imposing sentence. The court 

recognized that Denney had acted with a co-conspirator in committing the burglary. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

3 

It also acknowledged that the burglary had resulted in approximately $30,000 worth 

of damage to the victim of the offense, and that Denney had committed the burglary 

in this case while on probation for another offense before the same trial court. R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2) does not permit this court “to independently weigh the evidence in 

the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the 

sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. 

Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42; Anderson at ¶ 9. 

{¶5} Following our review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not 

err in imposing a maximum sentence. Denney’s assignment of error is overruled, 

and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BERGERON and BOCK, JJ., concur. 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.