[Cite as State v. Clark , 2021-Ohio-3508.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-20-1200 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202001624

v. Veronica Clark DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: September 30, 2021

* * * * * Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alyssa Breyman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Autumn D. Adams, for appellant.

* * * * * DUHART, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Veronica Clark, appeals the judgment entered by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on October 1, 2020, sentencing her to serve 24 months in prison. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.2. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On April 27, 2020, the Lucas County grand jury indicted appella nt on one count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a felony of the second degree. The charge stemmed from an altercation that occ urred in the hallway of appellant’s apartment complex and resulted in appellant stabbin g her neighbor in the shoulder. Appellant was initially released on a supervised own recognizance bond, under

the conditions that she have no contact with the victim or her residential complex and that she be placed on electronic monitoring and reside with her sist er. After she violated the conditions of her bond by “entering the exclusion zone,” she wa s arrested and a cash

bond was set. {¶ 3} On August 12, 2020, appellant voluntarily withdrew her former p lea of not guilty and entered a plea of no contest to the lesser included offense of attempted felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and R.C. 2903.1 1(A)(2) and (D), a felony of the third degree. As part of the plea colloquy, the trial c ourt advised appellant that it had the discretion to impose either a prison term of up to 36 m onths, followed by a mandatory three-year term of post-release control, or a communi ty control term of up to five years. {¶ 4} After the trial court accepted the plea and found appellant gui lty of the offense, the court ordered a presentence investigation report a nd set the matter for sentencing. The court also ordered a general psychological eva luation, following the3. state’s suggestion that such an evaluation would help the court to impose an accurate sentence. Finally, the court granted defense counsel’s request to modify appellant’s bond and, again, released her on a supervised own recognizance bond. In doing so, the court allowed appellant to return to her apartment complex, but advis ed her that she was under strict orders to avoid contact with the victim. Several days l ater, appellant violated the conditions of her bond for the second time and she was again pl aced in custody, where she remained for the rest of the proceedings. {¶ 5} At the sentencing hearing held on September 30, 2020, defense c ounsel made statements in mitigation on appellant’s behalf and encoura ged the court to impose a community control sanction that included treatment for appellan t’s mental health and substance abuse issues. The trial judge explained that because appellant had stabbed someone and violated the conditions of her bond, he was not con fident that she would comply with the requirements of community control. The judge r ecognized that appellant needed treatment for her mental health, anger managem ent, and substance abuse issues, but emphasized that both the victim and the commu nity needed to be protected. The court then sentenced appellant to 24 months in prison, followed by a mandatory three-year term of post-release control.4. Assignment of Error {¶ 6} On appeal, appellant asserts the following assignment of error: I. Appellant’s sentence should be vacated due to the Trial Cou rt’s failure to comply with the principles and purposes of sentencin g pursuant to

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Analysis {¶ 7} In her sole assignment of error, appellant claims that her sent ence should be vacated. An appellate court may modify or vacate a disputed se ntence on appeal only if it clearly and convincingly finds that: (1) the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under certain specified statutory provisions s et forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,” as set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v. Bothuel , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1053, 2021-Ohio-875, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “[A] sentence is not clearly and co nvincingly contrary to law for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) where the trial court has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousnes s and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applied postrelease control, a nd sentenced the defendant within the statutorily-permissible range.” Id. {¶ 8} The appellant bears the burden to identify clear and convincing evidence in the record that the sentence was erroneously imposed. Id. In the instant case, appellant does not challenge the trial court’s findings under any of the statutory provisions5. specified in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Instead, she argues that h er sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). {¶ 9} As indicated above, the trial court sentenced appellant to 24 m onths in prison, followed by a mandatory three-year term of post-release control. A conviction for attempted felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and R .C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), is a felony of the third degree that is subject to a defin ite prison term of “nine, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six months” an d a mandatory three-year term of post-release control. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b) and R.C. 2967.28(B)(3). At the sentencing hearing and in the October 1, 2020 judgment entry, t he trial court explicitly stated that it had considered the principles and purposes of se ntencing under R.C.

2929.11 and had balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. Because the trial court imposed a sentence within the statutory range, properly imposed postrelease control, and expressly stated that it complied with its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, appellant’s sentence is not clearly a nd convincingly contrary

to law. See State v. Stein , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1171, 2021-Ohio-761, ¶ 49. {¶ 10} Arguing to the contrary, appellant contends that her sentence i s clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the trial court failed to impose a sentence that advanced the principles and purposes of felony sentencing as se t forth in R.C. 2929.11 and failed to appropriately weigh the seriousness and recidivis m factors that are set forth in R.C. 2929.12. She asserts that the best way to punish her a nd protect the public from6. her, while promoting her effective rehabilitation, without impo sing an unnecessary burden on government resources, would have been to impose a com munity control

sanction that included treatment for her mental health and subs tance abuse issues. She also argues that the mitigating factors of her case -- such as her expression of remorse, recognition of her addiction and mental health issues, and asse rtion that the offense was committed under circumstances not likely to recur -- should hav e resulted in the imposition of a community control sanction. In making these ar guments, appellant is essentially inviting this court to make an independent determin ation as to whether the record supports her 24-month sentence. This we cannot do, as R .C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court “to independently weigh the evide nce 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 , 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020- Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42. Accordingly, appellant’s argu ment is without merit. {¶ 11} Because appellant has failed to identify clear and convincing e vidence that her sentence is contrary to law, her sole assignment of error i s found not well-taken. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Com mon Pleas. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 2 4. Judgment affirmed.7. State of Ohio v. Veronica Clark L-20-1200

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pu rsuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ___________________________

_ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J.

____________________________ Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.