[Cite as State v. Spaulding, 2022-Ohio-1784.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SCOTT SPAULDING

Defendant-Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Appellate Case No. 2021-CA-55

Trial Court Case No. 2021-CR-86(B)

(Criminal Appeal from

Common Pleas Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 27th day of May, 2022.

. . . . . . . . . . . 

IAN A. RICHARDSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0100124, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark

County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, 

Springfield, Ohio 45502

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

 

ADAM J. ARNOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0088791, 1717 Liberty Tower, 120 West Second 

Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

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

LEWIS, J.
-2-

{¶ 1} Scott Spaulding appeals from his conviction following a no-contest plea to 

one count of robbery, a third-degree felony. 

{¶ 2} Spaulding challenges the trial court’s imposition of a 36-month prison 

sentence. He claims the sentence was “unduly harsh” and inconsistent with the purposes 

of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 as well as the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12. 

Under Ohio law, however, we may not reevaluate the evidence and conduct the 

independent sentencing review that Spaulding seeks. Accordingly, the trial court’s 

judgment will be affirmed. 

I. Background

{¶ 3} A grand jury indicted Spaulding on charges of robbery, a second-degree 

felony, and aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, with firearm specifications. The 

charges stemmed from his participation along with two other individuals in an attempt to 

steal a truck from an elderly man. Following a competency challenge, Spaulding 

ultimately was found competent to stand trial. He later pled no-contest to an amended 

charge of robbery as a third-degree felony in exchange for dismissal of all other charges 

and specifications. Following a presentence investigation, the trial court imposed a 36-

month prison sentence, which was the statutory maximum. 

II. Analysis

{¶ 4} In his sole assignment of error, Spaulding contends the trial court erred in 

imposing a 36-month prison term. He maintains that his sentence was inconsistent with 

the purposes of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11. He also claims that a proper 
-3-

application of the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12 does not support 

his sentence. In particular, Spaulding asserts that he was not the “main” perpetrator of 

the crime, that he suffers from intellectual disabilities, that he is not a threat to the 

community (as evidenced by a moderate risk-assessment score), and that he has no 

criminal history other than driving without a license. For these reasons, Spaulding argues 

that his sentence was “unduly harsh,” and he asks us to reverse and remand for 

resentencing.

{¶ 5} When reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standards 

found in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Under that statute, we may increase, reduce, or modify a 

sentence, or vacate it altogether and remand for resentencing, if we clearly and 

convincingly find that the record does not support certain specified findings or that the 

sentence is contrary to law. A trial court’s seriousness and recidivism findings are not 

among the specified findings subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

{¶ 6} In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 9, 

the Ohio Supreme Court clarified that “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an 

appellate 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.” Therefore, when reviewing a sentence imposed based 

solely on consideration of those statutes, we may not analyze whether the record 

supports the sentence. The only issue is whether the sentence is contrary to law. State 

v. Line, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2021-CA-24, 2022-Ohio-857, ¶ 9, citing State v. Dorsey, 2d 

Dist. Montgomery No. 28747, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18. “A sentence is contrary to law when it 
-4-

does not fall within the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider 

the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, and the 

sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Brown, 2017-

Ohio-8416, 99 N.E.3d 1135, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 7} Here Spaulding’s 36-month prison sentence was within the statutory range 

for a third-degree felony. In addition, the trial court’s judgment entry states that “[t]he court 

considered the PSI, record, oral statements of counsel, the defendant’s statement, and 

the principles and purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.11, 

and then balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under Ohio Revised Code 

Section 2929.12.” October 26, 2021 Judgment Entry at 1. Therefore, Spaulding’s 

sentence is not contrary to law. 

{¶ 8} In short, the trial court examined the record and concluded that a 36-month 

prison term was consistent with the purposes of felony sentencing and was appropriate 

in light of the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors. Jones precludes us from 

independently weighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for the trial court’s 

regarding a sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. 

Accordingly, we overrule Spaulding’s assignment of error. 

III. Conclusion

{¶ 9} The judgment of the Clark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

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

DONOVAN, J. and EPLEY, J., concur. 
-

5-

Copies sent to:

Ian A. Richardson

Adam J. Arnold

Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter