Court Opinion

ID: 9942327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 20:10:42.060699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:57.857873
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Frazier, 2024-Ohio-518.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                HARDIN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                           CASE NO. 6-23-13
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

ANDREW P. FRAZIER,                                         OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Hardin County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. CRI 20232030

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                            Date of Decision: February 12, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         Howard A. Elliott for Appellant

         McKenzie J. Klinger for Appellee
Case No. 6-23-13

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant Andrew P. Frazier (“Frazier”) appeals the

judgment of the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court

erred at sentencing. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court

is affirmed.

                           Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} On February 15, 2023, Frazier was indicted on one count of having

weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a third-degree

felony and one count of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A),

a fourth-degree felony. Frazier was on post-release control at the time these offenses

were committed. On July 26, 2023, Frazier pled guilty to the second count in the

indictment while the first count was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. The

trial court then imposed a jointly recommended sentence, ordering Frazier to serve

the balance of time remaining on his post-release control sanction in addition to a

prison term for the instant offense.

                                Assignment of Error

       {¶3} Frazier filed his notice of appeal on August 9, 2023. On appeal, he

raises the following assignment of error:

       The trial court committed reversible error in sentencing the
       Defendant/Appellant after commission of a felony, to the balance of
       PRC time from a prior conviction without crediting time imposed as
       by way of APA sanctions arising out of the criminal conviction before

                                         -2-
Case No. 6-23-13

       the court and by failing to measure the time remaining of post-release
       control as of the date of sentencing all of which requires the sentence
       to be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for further
       proceedings.

                                Standard of Review

       {¶4} “R.C. 2953.08 governs appeals based on the felony sentencing

guidelines.” State v. Brill, 2023-Ohio-404, 207 N.E.3d 1274, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). Under

this provision, a defendant may appeal a sentence on the basis that it is contrary to

law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4). However, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) also states that

       A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under
       this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been
       recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case,
       and is imposed by a sentencing judge.

Further, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence under R.C.

2953.08(G)(2) “only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the

record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the

sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-

Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 1.

                                  Legal Standard

       {¶5} “R.C. 2929.141 governs sentencing for a felony offense committed

while on post-release control * * *.” State v. Murray, 4th Dist. Highland No.

16CA24, 2017-Ohio-1293, ¶ 10. This provision reads, in its relevant part, as

follows:

                                         -3-
Case No. 6-23-13

        (A) Upon the conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony by a person
        on post-release control at the time of the commission of the felony,
        the court may terminate the term of post-release control, and the court
        may * * *:

        (1) In addition to any prison term for the new felony, impose a prison
        term for the post-release control violation. The maximum prison term
        for the violation shall be the greater of twelve months or the period of
        post-release control for the earlier felony minus any time the person
        has spent under post-release control for the earlier felony. In all cases,
        any prison term imposed for the violation shall be reduced by any
        prison term that is administratively imposed by the parole board as a
        post-release control sanction. * * * The imposition of a prison term
        for the post-release control violation shall terminate the period of
        post-release control for the earlier felony.

                                           Legal Analysis

        {¶6} In this case, Frazier did not raise an objection before the trial court over

the issue he now brings to our attention. Thus, we review for plain error only.1 “For

plain error to apply, the trial court must have deviated from a legal rule, the error

must have been an obvious defect in the proceeding, and the error must have

affected a substantial right.” State v. Bradshaw, 2023-Ohio-1244, 213 N.E.3d 117,

¶ 21 (3d Dist.). “[T]he defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain

error affected his substantial rights.” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d

118, 2004-Ohio-297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 14.

        {¶7} On appeal, Frazier merely asserts that the trial court may not have

properly calculated the amount of time he had remaining on his post-release control

1
 Courts have found plain error where a sentence is contrary to law. State v. Walters, 4th Dist. Adams No.
15CA1009, 2016-Ohio-5783, ¶ 2; State v. Dowdell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111026, 2022-Ohio-2956, ¶ 9;
State v. Wilson, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-551, 2013-Ohio-1520, ¶ 18.

                                                  -4-
Case No. 6-23-13

sanction. State v. Pearce, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-12-091, 2014-Ohio-

3783, ¶ 10-12. While the appellant “has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating

the error of the trial court on appeal,” Frazier does not identify any evidence that

would suggest that the trial court’s calculations were incorrect or even state the

length of the sentence that he believes should have been imposed for his post-release

control violation. State v. Selzer, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23174, 2006-Ohio-6912, ¶

7.

       {¶8} Turning to the record, the trial court imposed a sentence that was jointly

recommended by both parties in this case. In this process, the trial court relied upon

a report from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“ODRC”)

that stated the number of days that Frazier had remaining on his post-release control

sanction as of the date of sentencing. After the trial court referred to this report,

defense counsel privately conferred with Frazier about the length of time he had

remaining on his post-release control sanction.

       {¶9} After the break, defense counsel stated that he and Frazier had reviewed

the figures in the ODRC report. Frazier stated that he understood the length of the

sentence for his post-release control violation and the terms of the jointly

recommended sentence. After this process, Frazier pled guilty. The trial court then

terminated Frazier’s post-release control and imposed the jointly recommended

sentence.

                                         -5-
Case No. 6-23-13

       {¶10} The record before us does not contain a copy of the ODRC report that

was used at the sentencing hearing. However,

       [a] general principle of appellate review is the presumption of
       regularity, that is, a trial court is presumed to have followed the law
       unless the contrary is made to appear in the record. * * * Also, in
       appeals, all reasonable presumptions consistent with the record will
       be indulged in favor of the legality of the proceedings below. The law
       presumes that the decree or judgment was made upon proper grounds;
       that the court below applied the law correctly; that a trial judge
       performed one’s duty and did not rely upon anything in reaching a
       decision upon which one should not have relied; and that the action
       below was justified.

State v. Phillips, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29087, 2022-Ohio-1262, ¶ 24, quoting

5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 454. On appeal, Frazier has

not raised an argument or identified evidence in the record that would cause us to

dispense with the presumption of regularity that attends court proceedings. State v.

Davis, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29824, 2021-Ohio-1796, ¶ 10.

       {¶11} In conclusion, Frazier has not raised any argument to establish the

error he claims on appeal. For this reason, he has failed to carry the burden of

establishing plain error. Further, as Frazier has not demonstrated that his jointly

recommended sentence was not authorized by law, his sentence is ultimately not

reviewable pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). State v. Price, 3d Dist. Crawford No.

3-23-04, 2023-Ohio-2810, ¶ 6. His sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                         -6-
Case No. 6-23-13

                                   Conclusion

       {¶12} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas is

affirmed.

                                                              Judgment Affirmed

WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

                                       -7-