Court Opinion

ID: 9374879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:07:28.478554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.782292
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-477.]

                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                   SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                         CLARK COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                     :
                                                   :
       Appellee                                    :   C.A. No. 2022-CA-52
                                                   :
 v.                                                :   Trial Court Case No. 22-CR-0305(A)
                                                   :
 DAKODAH L. SMITH                                  :   (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
                                                   :   Court)
       Appellant                                   :
                                                   :

                                             ...........

                                             OPINION

                                     Rendered on February 17, 2023

                                             ...........

IAN A. RICHARDSON, Attorney for Appellee

MICHAEL R. PENTECOST, Attorney for Appellant

                                            .............

EPLEY, J.

        {¶ 1} In May 2022, Defendant-Appellant Dakodah L. Smith pled guilty to one count

of robbery, a second-degree felony. Several weeks later, the trial court sentenced him to

7 to 10½ years in prison and ordered that he pay $552.61 in restitution. Smith appeals

from that conviction, arguing that his sentence is contrary to law. For the reasons that

follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

        I.       Facts and Procedural History
                                                                                           -2-

         {¶ 2} On March 22, 2022, Karl Breidenbach was sitting in his car during his lunch

break from work when Smith, along with two other individuals, forced Breidenbach out of

his car, threw him to the ground, and took off with the vehicle and his cell phone. A short

time later, the car was located in Enon; Smith was found nearby and admitted to the

crime.

         {¶ 3} Smith was charged with robbery, and he pled guilty on May 23, 2022. The

trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and set the disposition for July 5. At

the sentencing hearing, the court heard from the attorneys on both sides and considered

the PSI and Breidenbach’s victim impact statement. Smith’s attorney argued for a lenient

sentence due to Smith’s “clean” record, relative youth (he was 20 when he committed the

crime), and substance abuse problems. The State, on the other hand, recommended

prison time based on the violent nature of the crime and the victim impact statement.

         {¶ 4} The court ultimately believed that Smith’s youth, substance abuse issues,

and the fact that he had had no previous record and then committed a serious, violent

felony were all aggravating factors (instead of mitigating factors as urged by Smith’s

counsel), and it sentenced Smith to 7 to 10½ years in prison. The trial court also imposed

restitution in the amount of $552.61 – the value of the cell phone that was never

recovered.

         {¶ 5} Smith has filed this appeal, raising a single assignment of error.

         II.    Smith’s sentence was not contrary to law

         {¶ 6} In his assignment of error, Smith asserts that his 7 to 10½ year sentence was

not supported by the record, specifically that the court did not properly weigh the principles
                                                                                          -3-

and purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors

found in R.C. 2929.12.

        {¶ 7} A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized

statutory range, and it is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing

a maximum or more than minimum sentence. State v. Jones, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-

CA-8, 2021-Ohio-325, ¶ 85. “However, a trial court must consider the statutory criteria

that apply to every felony offense, including those set out in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12.” Id.

        {¶ 8} When reviewing felony sentences, we must apply the standard of review set

forth in R.C. 2953.08(G). Under that statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or

modify a sentence, or vacate it altogether and remand for resentencing, if it “clearly and

convincingly finds either (1) the record does not support certain specified findings or (2)

that the sentence imposed is contrary to law.” State v. Worthen, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.

29043, 2021-Ohio-2788, ¶ 13.

        {¶ 9} According to the Ohio Supreme Court, we may not independently “weigh the

evidence in the record and substitute [our] 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. The inquiry is simply

whether the sentence is contrary to law. A sentence is contrary to law when it falls outside

the statutory range for the offense or if the sentencing court does not consider R.C.

2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Dorsey, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28747, 2021-Ohio-76,

¶ 18.
                                                                                          -4-

       {¶ 10} In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Smith’s sentence was within the

statutory range for second-degree felonies, but he argues that the sentence was unlawful

because “the trial court did not properly consider the purposes and principles of felony

sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.”

Appellant’s Brief at 3. Although the court did not make specific findings regarding all the

factors, it did state during the sentencing hearing that it found Smith’s drug abuse and the

fact that he went from being a 20-year-old with no record to a 20-year-old committing a

violent felony to be aggravating factors. Further, the judgment entry verifies that the court

did consider all the principles and purposes of felony sentencing and the seriousness and

recidivism factors. Finally, to the extent that Smith argues that his sentence was

unsupported by the record, that argument is foreclosed by Jones.

       {¶ 11} Smith’s sentence was not contrary to law, and therefore the assignment of

error is overruled.

       III.   Conclusion

       {¶ 12} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

                                      .............

WELBAUM, P.J. and LEWIS, J., concur.