Court Opinion

ID: 9882834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:20:42.858448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:03.165399
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Pack, 2023-Ohio-3076.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :                No. 22AP-56
                                                              (C.P.C. No. 20CR-5856)
v.                                                :
                                                             (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Brandon L. Pack,                                  :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                                           D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on August 31, 2023

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark R.
                 Wilson.

                 On brief: Jeffery M. Blosser for appellant.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

EDELSTEIN, J.
          {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Brandon L. Pack, appeals the judgment of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas issued on January 12, 2022. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
          {¶ 2} Mr. Pack was indicted on December 15, 2020 with the following: 12 counts of
felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11, all felonies of the first degree; one count of
aggravated riot in violation of R.C. 2917.02, a felony of the fourth degree; one count of
aggravated arson in violation of R.C. 2909.02, a felony of the first degree; one count of
vandalism in violation of R.C. 2909.05, a felony of the fifth degree; and one count of
breaking and entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13, a felony of the fifth degree.
          {¶ 3} On September 22, 2021, Mr. Pack, represented by counsel, pled guilty to one
count of aggravated riot, three counts of felonious assault, one count of vandalism, and one
No. 22AP-56                                                                                2

count of breaking and entering. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi as to the remaining
ten charges.
       {¶ 4} Mr. Pack, his attorney, and an assistant prosecutor for the State of Ohio
appeared for a sentencing hearing on November 30, 2021. (Jan. 12, 2022 Jgmt. Entry at
1.) Both of the attorneys made statements on the record for the trial court’s consideration.
Mr. Pack also spoke on the record and expressed remorse for his conduct. In a judgment
entry issued January 12, 2022, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of a minimum
of eight years to a maximum of nine and one-half years in prison. (Id. at 2.) The trial court
noted in its decision that it considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing set
forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 in reaching this
determination. (Id.)
       {¶ 5} Mr. Pack timely appealed his conviction order and raises the following
assignment of error for our review:
               The trial court erred to the prejudice of Appellant by
               sentencing him in contravention of Ohio’s sentencing
               statutes.

       {¶ 6} Under his sole assignment of error, Mr. Pack contends the trial court failed
to consider the principles and purposes of felony sentencing in its decision, and thus
imposed sentences in contravention of the sentencing framework set forth in R.C. 2929.11
and 2929.12.
       {¶ 7} R.C. 2929.11(A) provides a trial court “shall be guided by the overriding
purposes of felony sentencing” when making a sentencing determination. To comply with
the principles and purposes of felony sentencing, the trial court is permitted to exercise
discretion in order to select an appropriate sentence. R.C. 2929.12(A). In exercising its
discretion, the trial court must consider the application of the factors contained in
R.C. 2929.12(B) that are relevant to the determination. Sentencing entries may be appealed
as a matter of right pursuant to R.C. 2953.08.
       {¶ 8} Mr. Pack argues his sentence is contrary to the principles and purposes of
felony sentencing and thus should be remanded for resentencing in compliance with
R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Both this court and the Supreme Court of Ohio have recently
No. 22AP-56                                                                                3

addressed the authority of an appellate court to review a sentence challenged under R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12.
       {¶ 9} In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, the Supreme Court
held that absent an express statutory authorization, appellate review of a felony sentence is
confined to whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Id. at ¶ 32,
citing R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). Because the statute does not contain any such exception for
sentences challenged under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the only proper determination is
whether the entry is in accordance with law. Id. at ¶ 31. Even a determination that the
sentence is unsupported by the record will not permit reversal. “When we consider the
evolution of R.C. 2953.08(G), it is evident that an appellate court’s conclusion that the
record does not support a sentence under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 is not the equivalent of a
conclusion that the sentence is ‘otherwise contrary to law’ as that term is used in
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).” Id. at ¶ 34. This holding was conceded by Mr. Pack. (Appellant’s
Brief at 11.)
       {¶ 10} Notwithstanding the Jones decision and Mr. Pack’s concession, he asks this
court to vacate his sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for a new sentencing
hearing where the court can reweigh the evidence in the record. (Appellant’s Brief at 12.)
We recently addressed a similar request, wherein the appellant asserted the trial court
inaccurately applied the factors and considerations required under R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12 but did not contend the sentence was otherwise contrary to law. See State v. Bruce,
10th Dist. No. 21AP-376, 2022-Ohio-909, ¶ 40. We concluded that such review was not
permitted. “Under Jones, and as acknowledged by appellant, this type of issue is not
reviewable on appeal. Because Jones is precedent dispositive of the issue raised by
appellant in this case, we abide by it and find appellant’s argument to the contrary to lack
merit.” Id.
       {¶ 11} As in Bruce, Mr. Pack does not assert his sentence was contrary to law, but
instead claims the facts of his case and the purposes and principles of felony sentencing
were not given due consideration by the trial court. The court considered the principles
and purposes of felony sentencing on the record during Mr. Pack’s sentencing hearing and
the court’s entry reflects it engaged in the required analysis under R.C. 2929.11
No. 22AP-56                                                                      4

and 2929.12. Bound by precedent, we may not review further. Accordingly, Mr. Pack’s
assignment of error is overruled.
       {¶ 12} Having overruled Mr. Pack’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the
judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.

                    DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.