[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 appellant 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 occurred in the hallway of 

appellant’s apartment complex and resulted in appellant stabbing 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 sister. After she violated the 

conditions of her bond by “entering the exclusion zone,” she was arrested and a cash 

bond was set. 

{¶ 3} On August 12, 2020, appellant voluntarily withdrew her former plea 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. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a felony 

of the third degree. As part of the plea colloquy, the trial court advised appellant that it 

had the discretion to impose either a prison term of up to 36 months, followed by a 

mandatory three-year term of post-release control, or a community control term of up to 

five years. 

{¶ 4} After the trial court accepted the plea and found appellant guilty of the 

offense, the court ordered a presentence investigation report and set the matter for 

sentencing. The court also ordered a general psychological evaluation, following the 
3. 

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 advised her that she was under 

strict orders to avoid contact with the victim. Several days later, appellant violated the 

conditions of her bond for the second time and she was again placed in custody, where 

she remained for the rest of the proceedings. 

{¶ 5} At the sentencing hearing held on September 30, 2020, defense counsel 

made statements in mitigation on appellant’s behalf and encouraged the court to impose a 

community control sanction that included treatment for appellant’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 confident that she would 

comply with the requirements of community control. The judge recognized that 

appellant needed treatment for her mental health, anger management, and substance 

abuse issues, but emphasized that both the victim and the community 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 Court’s 

failure to comply with the principles and purposes of sentencing pursuant to 

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. 

Analysis 

{¶ 7} In her sole assignment of error, appellant claims that her sentence should be 

vacated. An appellate court may modify or vacate a disputed sentence 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 set 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 convincingly 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 seriousness and recidivism factors 

listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applied postrelease control, and 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 provisions 
5. 

specified in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Instead, she argues that her 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 months 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 definite prison term of “nine, 

twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six months” and 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, the trial court explicitly 

stated that it had considered the principles and purposes of sentencing 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 and 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 is 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 set forth in R.C. 2929.11 

and failed to appropriately weigh the seriousness and recidivism factors that are set forth 

in R.C. 2929.12. She asserts that the best way to punish her and protect the public from 
6. 

her, while promoting her effective rehabilitation, without imposing an unnecessary 

burden on government resources, would have been to impose a community control 

sanction that included treatment for her mental health and substance 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 assertion that the offense was 

committed under circumstances not likely to recur -- should have resulted in the 

imposition of a community control sanction. In making these arguments, appellant is 

essentially inviting this court to make an independent determination 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 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, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-

Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 42. Accordingly, appellant’s argument is without merit. 

{¶ 11} Because appellant has failed to identify clear and convincing evidence that 

her sentence is contrary to law, her sole assignment of error is found not well-taken. We, 

therefore, affirm the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant 

is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 
7. 

State of Ohio 

v. Veronica Clark 

L-20-1200 

 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant 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 Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.