[Cite as State v. Sowell , 2021-Ohio-889.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

BRIAN DARNELL SOWELL, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2020-02-020

O P I N I O N

3/22/2021

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER C OUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2019-07-1068

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45 011, for appellee Engel & Martin, LLC, Joshua A. Engel, 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 10 1, Mason, Ohio 45040

PIPER, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Brian Sowell, appeals his sentence in the Butler Cou nty Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to trafficking in a fentanyl -related compound. {¶2} While on community control for an aggravated assault conviction , Sowell was indicted on seven drug and weapons charges, some of which conta ined firearm specifications. Some of the charges also alleged that Sowell's drug activity occurred withinButler CA2020-02-020

- 2 - the presence of a juvenile. Sowell ultimately pled guilty to o ne amended count of trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound, and the other counts and specif ications were dismissed. {¶3} Sowell waived a presentence investigation, and the trial court sentenced him to eight to 12 years in prison. Sowell's community control was also revoked, and he was

sentenced to 17 months. The trial court ordered the 17-month s entence to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in the drug trafficking case. Sowell now appeals his sentence, raising the following assignment of error: {¶4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE BASED ON

INFORMATION OUTSIDE THE RECORD WITHOUT PROVIDING APPELLANT AN

OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. {¶5} Sowell argues in his single assignment of error that the trial court erred in imposing his sentence. {¶6} We review the trial court's felony sentencing decision pursuant to the standard set forth by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Starr , 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2018- 09-065 and CA2018-09-066, 2019-Ohio-2081, ¶ 8. Pursuant to tha t statute, this court may modify or vacate a sentence only if, by clear and convincing ev idence, "the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or t hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Baker , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-06-042, 2019-Ohio-2280, ¶ 17. {¶7} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law wher e the trial court "considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences th e defendant within the permissible statutory range." State v. Williams , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-01-009, 2020- Ohio-5228, ¶ 12. {¶8} The record is undisputed that the trial court properly consider ed the statutoryButler CA2020-02-020

- 3 - sentencing requirements of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, imposed po strelease control, and sentenced Sowell within the statutory range for a second-degree felony. Thus, Sowell's sentence is not contrary to law. {¶9} Nevertheless, Sowell argues that the trial court erred during t he sentencing hearing, which renders his sentence contrary to law. First, So well argues that the trial court improperly considered his past criminal record and information about the charges that were dismissed as a part of the plea negotiations. However, the tri al court is statutorily required to consider relevant information when sentencing a defendant. R.C. 2929.19(B)(1). {¶10} This information included Sowell's criminal history, with which the trial court was familiar, as it had presided over Sowell's aggravated assau lt case for which he was sentenced to community control. During the current sentencing hearing, Sowell spoke of his past mistakes and criminal history during allocution, and h e waived a presentence investigation. At no time did Sowell object to any discussion of his criminal history, a history which was discussed by all parties and well known to the trial court. {¶11} The court also considered that police located fentanyl and a we apon in the home while the only person present was Sowell's juvenile daught er. While the weapons charges and specifications were dismissed and the juvenile-rela ted charge was amended, the facts and circumstances of those charges were properly cons idered by the trial court before sentencing. The facts were relevant to Sowell's plea an d to his sentencing, and at no time did Sowell object to the state's recitation of facts at either the plea hearing or at sentencing. The facts regarding Sowell's crimes went undispute d during the hearing, and were properly considered by the trial court. {¶12} Sowell also argues that he was not given an opportunity to resp ond to the state's allegations. However, the record indicates otherwise. Sowell was given allocution rights, during which he addressed his own history and asked the trial court for mercy basedButler CA2020-02-020

- 4 - upon recent changes in his life and the need to care for his ch ildren. At no time did Sowell allege that the trial court was in danger of considering inaccu rate information or that Sowell was being denied the ability to respond to information that was clearly a part of the record and had been discussed throughout the hearing. {¶13} After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court's sent ence was not contrary to law and that the trial court did not err in imposin g the sentence. Sowell's single assignment of error is overruled. {¶14} Judgment affirmed.

S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.