Court Opinion

ID: 9945000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 19:09:10.341892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:19.386126
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Calloway, 2024-Ohio-703.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                       LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

  STATE OF OHIO                                  :    JUDGES:
                                                 :
                                                 :    Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                      :    Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                 :    Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
  -vs-                                           :
                                                 :    Case No. 2023 CA 00045
                                                 :
  CHARLES F.C. CALLOWAY                          :
                                                 :
                                                 :
       Defendant-Appellant                       :    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Licking County Court of
                                                     Common Pleas, Case No. 2022 CR
                                                     00467

 JUDGMENT:                                           AFFIRMED

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                             February 26, 2024

 APPEARANCES:

  For Plaintiff-Appellee:                             For Defendant-Appellant:

  JENNY WELLS                                         RICHARD D. HIXSON
  LICKING COUNTY PROSECUTOR                           3808 James Court, Suite 2
                                                      Zanesville, OH 43701
  KENNETH W. OSWALT
  20 S. Second St., 4th Floor
  Newark, OH 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                 2

Delaney, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Charles F.C. Calloway appeals his April 26, 2023

conviction and sentence by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee

is the State of Ohio.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶2} The criminal proceedings against Defendant-Appellant Charles F.C.

Calloway began at 1:30 a.m. on July 15, 2022, when two sisters worked together to call

911 and report that Calloway and their mother, M.S., were fighting and Calloway shoved

their mother. Calloway was their mother’s boyfriend and he lived with them. The 13-year-

old and 14-year-old testified that Calloway came home angry that night. He went into

M.S.’s room and the children could hear them arguing. One child heard something break

when it hit the ground. The child heard M.S. say that Calloway hit her, but the child did

not witness Calloway hit her mother. Calloway and M.S. came out of their room and

continued their argument in the hallway, where the children could see them from their

rooms. M.S. started to go down the stairs when the children saw Calloway shove her.

M.S. wobbled but did not fall. After that, one child got her phone, dialed 911, and handed

it to her sister to speak to 911. In the 911 call, M.S. and Calloway can be heard arguing

in the background. Calloway left the home when the child told him the police were on the

way.

       {¶3} The Newark Police Department was dispatched to the reported address.

When they got to the home, they knocked on the door and yelled, “Newark Police” for 30

minutes, but no one answered the door. After 30 minutes, the police officers forced entry

into the home. The police officers found M.S. and the two children huddled on the bed in
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                 3

M.S.’s bedroom. Calloway was not in the home. M.S. and the children did not want to

speak with the police officers, but Officer Kristin Peacock was able to speak with M.S.

and record the conversation on her cruiser cam video. M.S. told Officer Peacock that

there was screaming and yelling when Calloway told M.S. to leave the residence,

Calloway got aggressive, and then he left. When asked for more detail, M.S. said there

was pushing and shoving, and Calloway pushed her down in the hallway. Officer Peacock

testified the hallway was close to the staircase. M.S. did not report any injuries. The

officers were concerned that Calloway would return to the home, so they took M.S. and

the children to the police department to be picked up by a family member.

          {¶4} Calloway was charged with domestic violence pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A)

and he was later arrested on August 8, 2022. He was taken to the Licking County Jail. At

the initial bond hearing, Calloway was ordered to have no contact with M.S., the alleged

victim.

          {¶5} On August 17, 2022, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted Calloway on

one count of domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), in

Case No. 22 CR 467. Calloway entered a plea of not guilty and was released on bond

that continued the no-contact order between him and M.S., but on September 1, 2022, a

capias was issued for his arrest for contacting M.S. and failing to report to probation.

Calloway was arrested on October 6, 2022 and taken to the Licking County Jail.

          {¶6} On October 20, 2022, the Licking County Grand Jury issued a superseding

three-count indictment: (1) domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2919.25(A); (2) intimidation of a victim or witness in a criminal case, a first-degree

misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2921.04(A); and (3) making false allegations of peace
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                  4

officer misconduct, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2921.15(B). Calloway

entered a not guilty plea to the charges and the no-contact order remained in place.

       {¶7} The State brought the additional two charges against Calloway based on

his behavior while in the Licking County Jail. Calloway was charged with Count Three

after he alleged that a Licking County Jail officer asked him to sell drugs, which after an

investigation proved to be a false statement. The State charged Calloway with Count Two,

intimidation of a witness or victim in a criminal case, based on Calloway’s continued

prohibited contact with M.S.

       {¶8} Erik McCourt is the Chief Investigator with the Licking County Prosecutor’s

Office. He was asked to locate M.S. in order to serve her with a subpoena. During his

search for M.S., he reviewed recorded jail calls between M.S. and Calloway. McCourt

learned that Calloway was using his jail account, and the jail accounts of other inmates in

the Licking County Jail, to make multiple phone calls to M.S. Since the beginning of the

case, McCourt stated he observed over 5000 jail recorded phone calls between Calloway

and M.S. McCourt estimated that M.S. accepted and spoke with Calloway in about 800

calls. Calloway called M.S. multiple times a day, but M.S. did not always answer. One of

the children testified that she knew Calloway was calling her mother and sometimes her

mother shut her phone off.

       {¶9} McCourt reviewed some of the phone calls between M.S. and Calloway. In

one phone call, Calloway tells M.S. not to show up at the grand jury hearing even though

she has been subpoenaed. Calloway says that if no one shows up, they have to release

him. In another call, Calloway asks M.S. if she is going to the grand jury proceedings.

M.S. says no. On August 18, 2022, Calloway calls M.S. and tells her that he was indicted.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                    5

He tells her to speak with the prosecutor to drop the charges. On October 10, 2022,

Calloway calls M.S. and tells her not to go anywhere because when he goes to trial and

they can’t produce a witness or a victim, he walks out. On a December 5 call, M.S.

confirms she is not going to court and Calloway responds that he’s going to have

someone get ahold of her to make sure of that.

       {¶10} On October 21, 2022, Calloway filed a request for relief from prejudicial

joinder of the three charges. He argued that while that the domestic violence led to the

additional misdemeanor charge of intimidation, there was no direct connection between

the domestic violence charge and the charge of false allegations. Via judgment entry filed

December 13, 2022, the trial court granted the motion to sever the misdemeanor counts

from the felony counts in the indictment.

       {¶11} On December 8, 2022, the Licking County Grand Jury issued a

superseding three-count indictment charging Calloway with: (1) domestic violence, a

fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A); (2) intimidation of a victim or witness

in a criminal case, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2921.04(A); and (3)

falsification, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2921.13.

       {¶12} In December 2022, Calloway sent a letter to M.S., via M.S.’s mother. M.S.’s

mother had known Calloway for 12 years. A portion of the letter read:

       Your really starting to piss me off, fr, by ignoring me for no fuckin reason.

       But it’s ok I’ll see you when they release me on 12-14-22 and see if your

       gonna ignore me then. You wont be able to cuz I will be right in your face in

       the flesh. Im coming right to your mom house when I get out of here and

       walkin right in the garage cuz you got me fucked up! and who ever that other
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                   6

       nigga is that dead too all the way, you think I’m gonna let you go yeah not

       gonna happen [M.S.]. This is suppose to be a kind letter but you just get

       under my skin by doing dumb ass shit. * * *

(T. 73, State’s Exhibit 5). At the time of the letter, M.S. was dating another person.

       {¶13} On December 29, 2022, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted Calloway

in Case No. 22 CR 837 for intimidation of a witness or victim, a third-degree felony in

violation of R.C. 2921.04. The trial court ordered that Case No. 22 CR 837 be

consolidated with Case No. 22 CR 467. The charge in Case No. 22 CR 837 was to be

considered Count Two.

       {¶14} The matter was set for a jury trial, but on January 30, 2023, the jury trial

was cancelled and set for a bench trial. On March 6, 2023, the matter proceeded to a

bench trial on only the felony domestic violence charge and the felony intimidation charge.

M.S. did not appear at trial. At the conclusion of the State’s case, Calloway moved for an

acquittal under Crim.R. 29 on both charges. The trial court granted the Crim.R. 29 motion

as to the domestic violence charge and denied the motion as to the intimidation charge.

The defense rested without testimony from Calloway.

       {¶15} The trial court found Calloway guilty of the felony intimidation count that was

originally set out in Case No. 22 CR 837 and transferred to Case No. 22 CR 467. The trial

court deferred sentencing to complete a presentence investigation report.

       {¶16} On April 26, 2023, Calloway entered pleas of guilty to the two misdemeanor

charges. Via sentencing entry filed on April 26, 2023, the trial court sentenced Calloway

to thirty-six months on the felony intimidation charge and six months on the misdemeanor

charges, to run concurrently for a total of three years in prison.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                   7

       {¶17} It is from this judgment that Calloway now appeals.

                               ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶18} Calloway raises two Assignments of Error:

       I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF

       INTIMIDATION UNDER R.C. 2921.04(B), A FELONY OF THE THIRD

       DEGREE, AS SUCH FINDING WAS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY AND

       MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

       II. THE TRIAL COURT’S SENTENCE WAS CONTRARY TO LAW, AS IT

       WAS     IMPOSED        WITHOUT      ADEQUATELY        CONSIDERING        THE

       PURPOSES OF FELONY SENTENCING UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE

       SECTION      2929.11    OR    THE    SERIOUSNESS         OF   CRIME      AND

       RECIDIVISM FACTORS UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION

       2929.12.

                                        ANALYSIS

                                             I.

       {¶19} In his first Assignment of Error, Calloway argues his conviction for a

violation of R.C. 2921.04(B) was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the

evidence. We disagree.

       {¶20} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence

are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,

1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. The standard of review for

a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d

259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the syllabus, in which the Ohio Supreme
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                   8

Court held, “An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine

whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

       {¶21} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing the

entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility

of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must

be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.

Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence and ordering

a new trial should be reserved for only the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs

heavily against the conviction.” Id.

       {¶22} Calloway was found guilty of intimidation of an attorney, victim, or witness

in a criminal case, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2921.04(B). The statute reads

in pertinent part:

       ***

       (B) No person, knowingly and by force or by unlawful threat of harm to any

       person or property or by unlawful threat to commit any offense or calumny

       against any person, shall attempt to influence, intimidate, or hinder any of

       the following persons:
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                      9

       (1) The victim of a crime or delinquent act in the filing or prosecution of

       criminal charges or a delinquent child action or proceeding;

       (2) A witness to a criminal or delinquent act by reason of the person being

       a witness to that act;

       ***

       (D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of intimidation of an attorney,

       victim, or witness in a criminal case. A violation of division (A) of this section

       is a misdemeanor of the first degree. A violation of division (B) of this section

       is a felony of the third degree.

       {¶23} Calloway argues on appeal that the State failed to establish the element of

“unlawful threat of harm” as required by R.C. 2921.04(B). This Court has previously

analyzed the meaning of “unlawful threat of harm” in State v. Price, 5th Dist. Delaware

No. 2019 CA 00019, 2020-Ohio-132. In Price, the defendant was convicted of intimidation

of a witness in violation of R.C. 2921.04(A), which provides:

       (A) No person shall knowingly attempt to intimidate or hinder the victim of a

       crime or delinquent act in the filing or prosecution of criminal charges or a

       delinquent child action or proceeding, and no person shall knowingly

       attempt to intimidate a witness to a criminal or delinquent act by reason of

       the person being a witness to that act.

The defendant contended on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to show that he

threatened to harm or restrain the victim in the case. In determining whether the verdict

was supported by the sufficiency of the evidence, we reviewed the differences between
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                     10

the prohibited type of conduct in each subsection of the statute, as explained by the Ohio

Supreme Court:

       Both R.C. 2921.04(A) and (B) prohibit knowing attempts to intimidate a

       witness. We cannot hypothesize an instance in which the act of threatening

       a witness would not also constitute intimidation. The term “threat”

       represents a range of statements or conduct intended to impart a feeling of

       apprehension in the victim, whether of bodily harm, property destruction, or

       lawful harm, such as exposing the victim's own misconduct. See Planned

       Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Blake (1994), 417 Mass. 467,

       474, 631 N.E.2d 985 (defining “threat” as “the intentional exertion of

       pressure to make another fearful or apprehensive of injury or harm”). To

       “intimidate” means to “make timid or fearful: inspire or affect with fear:

       frighten * * *; esp.: to compel to action or inaction (as by threats).” (Emphasis

       added and capitalization omitted.) Webster's Third New International

       Dictionary at 1184.

       “Intimidation” by definition involves the creation of fear in a victim, and the

       very nature of a threat is the creation of fear of negative consequences for

       the purpose of influencing behavior. We simply do not discern a meaningful

       difference between intimidation of a witness and the making of a threat to a

       witness. Accordingly, both R.C. 2921.04(A) and (B) prohibit the threatening

       of witnesses.

       An unlawful threat must accordingly connote more than just a threat, i.e.,

       more than just a communication to a person that particular negative
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                    11

       consequences will follow should the person not act as the communicator

       demands. The word “unlawful” in R.C. 2921.04(B) must add substantive

       meaning, or it is superfluous. Adoption of the state's argument requires us

       in effect to rewrite R.C. 2921.04(B) by deleting the adjective “unlawful” from

       the statute. The interpretation of the court of appeals requires us to rewrite

       the statute by construing the adjective “unlawful” as a modifier of the noun

       “conduct,” a word not even used in the statute. We do not sanction either

       approach.

       We hold, rather, that the statutory language in R.C. 2921.04(B), proscribing

       intimidation by an “unlawful threat of harm,” is satisfied only when the very

       making of the threat is itself unlawful because it violates established criminal

       or civil law. For example, where the making of a threat constitutes the

       offense of coercion, in violation of R.C. 2905.12, a misdemeanor, that

       offense would serve as a predicate offense for the crime of witness

       intimidation as proscribed by R.C. 2921.04(B), a felony.

State v. Price, 2020-Ohio-132, ¶ 29 quoting State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72, 2006-

Ohio-6501, 858 N.E.2d 341, ¶¶ 39-42. The Court held that the threat itself, not the

threatened conduct, must be unlawful. Id. at ¶ 38, 858 N.E.2d 341. State v. Yambrisak,

5th Dist. Richland No. 2012CA50, 2013-Ohio-1406, ¶ 31.

       {¶24} Calloway argues the letter he sent to M.S. in December 2022 did not contain

an unlawful threat of harm. In support of his argument, he refers this Court to the Urban

Dictionary to explain that Calloway’s meaning of “whoever that other nigga is that dead

too all the way” was not a threat to the life of M.S.’s new boyfriend but slang that means,
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                   12

“not happening.” Calloway chose not to testify at trial and before the defense rested,

Calloway asked the trial court to take judicial notice of Defense Exhibit A, which was the

definition from the Urban Dictionary of “that’s dead.” (T. 83). The State objected to the

admission of the exhibit and the trial court sustained the objection. The evidence was

proffered for the record. (T. 85). Calloway does not argue on appeal that the trial court

erred in sustaining the State’s objection to taking judicial notice of his exhibit.

       {¶25} M.S.’s mother testified as to the letter Calloway sent to M.S. M.S.’s mother

had known Calloway for 12 years while he was in a relationship with her daughter.

Defense counsel asked M.S.’s mother if “that dead too” sounded like slang to her. M.S.’s

mother testified that it did and that was how Calloway talked. However, when asked

whether she read that as a threat, M.S.’s mother testified, “Yes. ‘Cause I’m used to

Charley coming up in my house. He’s not – to me, he’s not violent in my house, but his

words are.” (T. 76).

       {¶26} The trial court announced its verdict finding Calloway guilty of a violation of

R.C. 2921.04(B):

       Well, I read the letter referring to the release on December 12, which is after

       she doesn’t appear at the trial, and there’s no victim testimony there. And

       as I read the statute, it doesn’t – the threat doesn’t have to be against her.

       It can be against anyone, so the threat is, obviously against the other guy

       here, and that would seem to me sufficient to constitute the elements set

       out in the statute.

(T. 90).
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                    13

       {¶27} In a bench trial, a trial judge is “presumed to have considered only the

competent and material evidence.” In re Z.G.A.A., 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 2023CA0028,

2024-Ohio-326, 2024 WL 370082, ¶ 71 quoting State v. Davis, 10th Dist. Franklin No.

17AP-438, 2018-Ohio-58, ¶ 32, citing State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 267, 750

N.E.2d 90 (2001). The State presented evidence of the 5000 phone calls Calloway made

to M.S., telling her to not appear at the grand jury, to evade a subpoena, and not testify.

The Chief Investigator testified that he was never able to locate M.S. (T. 52). Calloway

eventually sent M.S. a letter stating that she was pissing him off by ignoring him and after

he was released on December 14, 2022, he was going to be right in her face and she

could not ignore him then. Calloway wrote that whoever M.S.’s new boyfriend was, he

was “dead too all the way, you think im gonna let you go yeah not gonna happen [M.S.].”

M.S.’s mother, who knew Calloway for 12 years, understood the letter to be a threat.

       {¶28} We find the trial court’s verdict of an unlawful threat of harm in violation of

R.C. 2921.04(B) was supported by the sufficiency of the evidence and not against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶29} Calloway’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.

                                             II.

       {¶30} In his second Assignment of Error, Calloway contends his sentence was

contrary to law. We disagree.

       {¶31} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.

2953.08. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22;

State v. Howell, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00004, 2015-Ohio-4049, 2015 WL 5722820,

¶ 31. Subsection (G)(2) sets forth this court's standard of review:
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                   14

       (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 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.

       {¶32} “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
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                       15

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.

        {¶33} 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.

        {¶34} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently 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
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                   16

       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.

State v. Taylor, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2022 CA 0007, 2023-Ohio-4160, 2023 WL

7990394, ¶¶ 82-85 citing State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198

N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22.

       {¶35} Calloway concedes his sentence is within the statutory range for the

offense. He argues the record is devoid of evidence that the trial court considered the

purposes of felony sentencing or the seriousness of crime and recidivism factors as

required.

       {¶36} Calloway was convicted on March 6, 2023 and the sentencing hearing was

held on April 26, 2023 to allow time for a presentence investigation. The trial court stated

that it had reviewed the presentence investigation report prior to sentencing. (T. 19).

Counsel for Calloway spoke on Calloway’s behalf, expressing his remorse for his actions.

At the time of the offense, Calloway was not under any type of supervision and had no

juvenile record. His criminal history began with his relationship with M.S. and counsel

described Calloway’s relationship with M.S. as toxic and an addiction. (T. 20). The trial

court then heard Calloway speak on his own behalf. (T. 21). The State agreed the

relationship between M.S. and Calloway was volatile and did not believe that Calloway

would comply with orders given to him by the court based on the relationship history,

ultimately agreeing with the sentencing recommendation by the Adult Court Services for
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                                    17

30 months in prison. (T. 23). The trial court stated it had considered the purposes and

principles of sentencing set out under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and

recidivism factors set out under R.C. 2929.12. (T. 24). It then stated,

       And it’s your prior record that’s the problem here and your continued

       infatuation or fixation on [M.S.] here from your menacing charge over ten

       years ago, violation of protection order, another violation of protection order,

       abduction, violation of protection order, escape, violation of protection

       order, assault. It’s – those are very scary charges. On that basis, Mr.

       Calloway, I’ll impose a term of three years in the state penitentiary * * *.

(T. 24-25).

       {¶37} We find that based on this record, the trial court complied with the felony

sentencing statutes and the sentence was not contrary to law.

       {¶38} Calloway’s second Assignment of Error is overruled.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00045                                               18

                                   CONCLUSION

       {¶39} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Delaney, J.,

Gwin, P.J. and

King, J., concur.