Court Opinion

ID: 9954110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:09:56.918426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.042339
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Mantell, 2024-Ohio-1093.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                       KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                  JUDGES:
                                                Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                     Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                                Case No. 23CA000014
 KELLI MANTELL

          Defendant-Appellant                   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                      Appeal from the Knox County Court of
                                                Common Pleas, Case No. 23CR03-0064

 JUDGMENT:                                      Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        March 22, 2024

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant

 CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE                          TODD W. BARSTOW
 Knox County Prosecuting Attorney               261 W. Johnstown Road, Suite #204
                                                Columbus, Ohio 43230
 NICOLE E. DERR
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 117 East High Street, Suite #234
 Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050
Knox County, Case No. 23CA000014                                                        2

Hoffman, J.
       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Kelli M. Mantell appeals the judgment entered by the

Knox County Common Pleas Court convicting her following her pleas of guilty to two

counts of endangering children (R.C. 2919.22(A)) and one count of aggravated

possession of drugs (R.C. 2925.11(A)), and sentencing her to an aggregate term of

incarceration of thirty months. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On March 4, 2023, Officer Ronald Cerny of the Mount Vernon Police

Department was dispatched to a home where drugs had been reported. Appellant’s

husband told the officer he woke up around 10:00 a.m. to find Appellant, who was his wife

and the owner of the home, asleep on the couch, fully clothed, in a slumped-over position.

He found narcotics on a bookshelf in front of the kitchen. Appellant’s husband told police

he has two small children who frequent the area where the narcotics were located.

       {¶3}   Police woke up Appellant, and found 16 grams of methamphetamine on the

shelf, as well as a scale, bowls, baggies and syringes. All items were located in an area

where the children might be present. Appellant stated she did not remember how she got

home the night before or how the drugs got there.

       {¶4}   Appellant was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury with two counts of

endangering children, one count of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, one

count of possessing drug abuse instruments, and one count of aggravated possession of

drugs. She entered guilty pleas to two counts of endangering children and one count of

aggravated possession of drugs, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The trial

court sentenced Appellant to three months incarceration for each conviction of

endangering children and thirty months incarceration for aggravated possession of drugs,
Knox County, Case No. 23CA000014                                                         3

to be served concurrently, for an aggregate term of thirty months incarceration. It is from

the September 25, 2023 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes her appeal,

assigning as error:

              THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT

       BY SENTENCING HER IN CONTRAVENTION OF OHIO’S SENTENCING

       STATUTES.

       {¶5}   R.C. 2953.08 (G)(2) sets forth this court's standard of review of felony

sentences:

              (2) 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.

              The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a

       sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence

       and remand 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:

              (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
Knox County, Case No. 23CA000014                                                          4

        section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,

        whichever, if any, is relevant;

               (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

        {¶6}   “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is

more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty

as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in

the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be

established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three

of the syllabus. “A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where 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 post release control, and sentences the defendant

within the permissible statutory range.’” State v. Padilla, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2022

AP 08 0023, 2023-Ohio-1995, 2023 WL 4044122, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Dinka, 12th Dist.

Warren Nos. CA2019-03-022 and CA2019-03-026, 2019-Ohio-4209, 2019 WL 5106376,

¶ 36.

        {¶7}   As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) “does not

provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view

that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State

v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39. “Nothing in R.C.

2953.08(G)(2) permits 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.” Id. at ¶ 42.
Knox County, Case No. 23CA000014                                                            5

       {¶8}   {¶34} The Supreme Court of Ohio later clarified the Jones opinion as

follows:

              The narrow holding in Jones is that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not

       allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view

       that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and

       2929.12. See Jones at ¶¶ 31, 39. Nothing about that holding should be

       construed as prohibiting appellate review of a sentence when the claim is

       that the sentence was imposed based on impermissible considerations—

       i.e., considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11

       and 2929.12. Indeed, in Jones, this court made clear that R.C.

       2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate courts to reverse or modify sentencing

       decisions that are “ ‘otherwise contrary to law.’ ” Jones at ¶ 32, quoting R.C.

       2953.08(G)(2)(b). This court also recognized that “otherwise contrary to

       law” means “ ‘in violation of statute or legal regulations at a given time.’ ” Id.

       at ¶ 34, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 328 (6th Ed. 1990). Accordingly,

       when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations

       that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and

       2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law. Claims that raise these types of

       issues are therefore reviewable.

       {¶9}   State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22.
Knox County, Case No. 23CA000014                                                         6

       {¶10} Appellant does not argue the trial court considered factors or considerations

extraneous to those permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, but rather argues the trial

court erred in its balancing of the sentencing factors. Appellant concedes this type of

review is impermissible under Jones, but asks this Court to instead follow the dissenting

opinion in Jones. This Court has previously rejected Appellant’s legal argument:

              Bonnette acknowledges that Jones is controlling and asks that we

       disregard it and instead follow the dissent authored by Justice Donnelly, but

       we “are bound to follow the law and decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court,

       unless or until they are reversed or overruled. State v. Lenior, 5th Dist.

       Delaware No. 10CAA010011, 2010-Ohio-4910, 2010 WL 3921188; Phillips

       v. Phillips, 5th Dist., 2014-Ohio-5439, 25 N.E.3d 371.” Wendt v. Dickerson,

       5th Dist. No. 2017 AP 08 0024, 2018-Ohio-1034, 108 N.E.3d 1174, ¶ 30.

       We are therefore obligated to adhere to the decision in Jones and to reject

       Bonnette's request.

       {¶11} State v. Bonnette, 5th Dist. Knox No. 23CA000009, 2023-Ohio-4430, ¶ 14.

       {¶12} We decline to follow the dissent in Jones, and find we do not have the

authority to reweigh the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

       {¶13} Further, Appellant has not provided this Court with a transcript of the

sentencing hearing. While the trial court ordered the court reporter to prepare transcripts

of hearings in the instant case including the sentencing hearing on September 21, 2023,

the notice filed by the court reporter indicates the transcripts from March 22, 2023; May
Knox County, Case No. 23CA000014                                                        7

4, 2023; March 29, 2023; July 20, 2023; and August 17, 2023 were filed. The transcript

of the sentencing hearing on September 21, 2023 was not filed with this Court, and

Appellant took no steps to supplement the record.     The duty to provide a transcript for

appellate review falls upon the appellant, and when portions of the transcript necessary

for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has

nothing to pass upon, and has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's

proceedings, and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400

N.E.2d 384, 385 (1980). Thus, even if we were to accept Appellant’s argument and chose

to follow the dissenting opinion in Jones, we would have no choice but to affirm due to

the lack of a transcript of the sentencing hearing.

       {¶14} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Knox County

Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur