[Cite as State v. Younker, 2012-Ohio-2532.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2011 CA 33 

v. : T.C. NO. 10CR366 

JENIFER L. YOUNKER : (Criminal appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

 : 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 8th day of June , 2012. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0074332, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 61 Greene 

Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385 

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

DANIEL E. BRINKMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0025365, Suite 2000 Liberty Tower, 120 West Second 

Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

JENIFER L. YOUNKER, #W081-191, Dayton Correctional Center, P. O. Box 17399, Dayton, 

Ohio 45417 

Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . 
2

PER CURIAM: 

{¶ 1} Jenifer Younker was originally charged by indictment with five separate counts – 

count one: Conspiracy to Commit Trafficking in Cocaine, a second degree felony, in violation of 

R.C. 2923.01(A)(2) and R.C. 2925.03(A)(1); count two: Trafficking in Cocaine, a first degree 

felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1); counts three and four: Trafficking in Cocaine, second 

degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1); and count five: Complicity to Trafficking in 

Cocaine, a third degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) and R.C. 2925.03(A)(1).

{¶ 2} The parties entered into a plea agreement in which Younker pled guilty to count 

one, as charged, and to counts three and five, which were amended to Trafficking in Cocaine, a 

fourth degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1). The State agreed to dismiss counts two 

and four. The court sentenced Younker to four years in prison on count one, to run concurrently 

with two eighteen-month sentences for counts three and five. 

{¶ 3} Appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal on June 8, 2011. On January 9, 2012, 

counsel filed an Anders brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he could find no meritorious issues for appellate review. By 

magistrate’s order on January 18, 2012, we notified Younker that her counsel had filed an Anders

brief and of the significance of that brief. The order advised Younker of her right to file a pro se 

brief within sixty days. Younker did not file a pro se brief. 

{¶ 4} Younker’s counsel identified two possible issues for appeal. First, he raises that 

“the trial court failed to comply with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence, 

which is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Second, he raises that “the trial court abused 

its discretion in sentencing the defendant to four years in prison.”
3

{¶ 5} Younker’s sentence is neither contrary to law nor an abuse of discretion. “The 

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

offender and others and to punish the offender.” R.C. 2929.11(A). The Supreme Court of Ohio 

enumerated a two-step process for appellate review of criminal sentencing. State v. Kalish, 120 

Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124. First, the appellate court considers whether the 

trial court complied with all applicable rules and statutes. Id. at ¶ 4. Second, when the sentence is 

not contrary to law, it will be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Id. A sentence is 

not an abuse of discretion unless a sentence is grossly unsound, unreasonable, illegal or 

unsupported by the evidence. State v. Saunders, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2009 CA 82, 

2011-Ohio-391, ¶ 12. 

{¶ 6} The trial court expressly stated that it had balanced the seriousness and 

recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. Trial courts do not need to make further findings to 

demonstrate that they have considered the factors. State v. Watkins, 186 Ohio App.3d 619, 

2010-Ohio-740, 929 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 39 (2d Dist.). The trial court emphasized the seriousness of 

Younker’s drug dealing activities, and that Younker’s co-defendant received a harsher sentence 

of sixteen years. Furthermore, the transcript of the sentencing hearing demonstrates that the trial 

court considered Younker’s status as a mother, as well as her efforts to educate herself and 

maintain employment, when imposing a lighter sentence. This court has recognized that a trial 

court enjoys “full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the 

court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive 

or more than minimum sentences.” Saunders at ¶ 10. After considering the applicable rules and 

statutes, the court imposed a four year sentence, well within the statutory range of two to eight 
4

years. Furthermore, count one, Conspiracy to Commit Trafficking in Cocaine, a second degree 

felony, carried a presumption of imprisonment. Younker’s sentence was not contrary to law, and 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing her sentence.

{¶ 7} Pursuant to our responsibilities according to Anders, we have conducted an 

independent review of the entire record and have found no error with arguable merit. We agree 

with the assessment of the appointed counsel that there is no meritorious issue to present on an 

appeal. 

{¶ 8} The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

GRADY, P.J., FAIN, J., and DONOVAN, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Elizabeth A. Ellis 

Daniel E. Brinkman 

Jenifer L. Younker 

Hon. Stephen A. Wolaver