[Cite as State v. Nelson, 2016-Ohio-2692.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2015-T-0074

 - vs - : 

KEITH ERICK NELSON, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CR 

0009. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and LuWayne Annos, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 

44481-1092 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Michael A. Partlow, 112 South Water Street, Suite C, Kent, OH 44240 (For DefendantAppellant). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Keith E. Nelson, timely appeals his sentence after pleading 

guilty to attempted felonious assault. He argues that the trial court erroneously imposed 

the maximum prison term. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

{¶2} Nelson and his live-in girlfriend returned to his home from a bar in 

December 2014. Nelson had been jealous that night and started beating her without 

notice, punching her in the head multiple times. Officers responded and found the 
 2

victim covered in blood and suffering from a concussion. She had several cuts on her 

head and her face was swollen and red. Officers also found a large clump of her hair in 

the garage, a pool of blood in the driveway, blood near a wood pile, and a broken lamp 

in the garage. 

{¶3} The victim was in a daze and unable to fully tell officers what had 

happened to her. She kept repeating herself. She was transported to the hospital via 

ambulance where she was diagnosed as suffering a subdural hematoma and 

subarachnoid hemorrhage resulting from the facial trauma. 

{¶4} Nelson was indicted and charged with felonious assault, a second-degree 

felony, and domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 

2903.11(A)(1)(2) and 2919.25(A). He later pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of 

attempted felonious assault, and the domestic violence charge was dismissed. He was 

sentenced to 36 months in prison with three years mandatory post-release control and 

ordered to pay restitution. 

{¶5} Nelson’s sole assigned error asserts: 

{¶6} “The trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence upon the 

appellant.” 

{¶7} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) dictates our standard of review, State v. Long, 11th 

Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-102, 2014-Ohio-4416, ¶71, which states: 

{¶8} “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. 

{¶9} “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a 

sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand 
 3

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: 

{¶10} “(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; 

{¶11} “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” (Emphasis added.) 

{¶12} The prosecution stated at the plea hearing that the evidence at trial would 

have proven: “the defendant and the victim became engaged in an oral argument. 

During that time, the defendant became more agitated. At one point he began punching 

the victim in the face and he placed her in a chokehold which caused her to lose 

consciousness and seek medical attention.” 

{¶13} At sentencing the state asked for the imposition of prison time and 

emphasized that Nelson violated the court’s no-contact order before sentencing by 

having another inmate write to the victim. This letter included personal drawings from 

Nelson to the victim. 

{¶14} The victim spoke at sentencing, stating: 

{¶15} “The severity of my injuries that I incurred as a result of the brutal beating 

has affected my life physically, financially, and emotionally. * * * While I am improving 

on a daily basis, I’ve been seeing a neurosurgeon once a month, and I have undergone 

a series of CAT scans. Luckily each * * * shows improvement, and I am very optimistic 

that the next one * * * will hopefully be the last and allow me to return to work on a fulltime basis. 
 4

{¶16} “* * * I’m also undergoing psychological counseling and am suffering from 

post-traumatic stress disorder. I’m afraid that this assault will haunt me for the rest of 

my life. 

{¶17} “* * * 

{¶18} “In my opinion, Mr. Nelson shows no signs of remorse for what he did to 

me. He has taunted me in the courtroom in the past. * * * 

{¶19} “Your honor, I do ask that you impose a maximum sentence on Mr. 

Nelson, not only for my safety but also for the safety of all women. I wish that I had 

been aware of his history of domestic violence and that I could have avoided this 

tragedy that has affected my life in such a negative way.” 

{¶20} Nelson denied having a history of domestic violence. He admitted being 

charged with assault on a male, but denied ever hitting a woman. When asked by the 

court to describe what he did to the victim, Nelson said: 

{¶21} “It was poor decisions by both parties. * * * 

{¶22} “I defended myself, and with adrenalin and, fear, I, you know, reached out 

and defused the situation. And that’s all I did.” 

{¶23} Nelson also denied having anything to do with the letter sent to the victim 

during his time in the county jail. 

{¶24} Upon ordering Nelson to serve the maximum, 36-month prison term, the 

trial court stated that it had “considered the overriding principles and purposes of felony 

sentencing, further has considered all seriousness and recidivism factors. The Court 

finds the sentence to be proportional to the defendant’s conduct as well as consistent 

with similarly situated offenders.” 
 5

{¶25} It then found that “the defendant has a history of similar offenses, he has 

minimized his involvement in the instant case, and the victim had suffered severe 

physical harm.” It also found in its sentencing entry, “(1) the Defendant has a history of 

convictions for similar offenses; (2) that the Defendant contacted the victim in violation 

of bond; and (3) that the victim suffered serious physical harm.” 

{¶26} Although Nelson correctly points out that there was no evidence that he 

had been previously convicted of domestic violence, he had two prior charges for 

domestic violence and a prior conviction for assault. The presentence investigation 

report confirms that Nelson pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct on one occasion and 

the other domestic violence charge was dismissed. Nelson was convicted of assault 

following a jury trial in 2001. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred 

in stating that Nelson had a history of similar offenses. 

{¶27} Furthermore, its imposition of the maximum sentence is supported by the 

severe nature of his victim’s injuries as well as Nelson’s failure to accept responsibility, 

his lack of remorse, and his violation of the no-contact order pending sentencing. Thus, 

the trial court’s imposition of the maximum allowable prison term was supported by the 

record and is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Nelson’s sole assigned error 

lacks merit, and the trial court’s decision is affirmed. 

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., 

concur.