Court Opinion

ID: 9892395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 18:10:26.530969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:14.328951
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Miller, 2023-Ohio-3844.]

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

STATE OF OHIO
                                                           CASE NO. 9-23-27
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

NATHANIEL ALLAN MILLER,                                    OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                             Trial Court No. 22-CR-338

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                            Date of Decision: October 23, 2023

APPEARANCES:

         W. Joe Edwards for Appellant

         Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-23-27

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant Nathaniel Miller (“Miller”) brings this appeal

from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County sentencing him

to a prison term of 18 months. Miller claims on appeal that the trial court erred by

sentencing him to a maximum sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the

judgment is affirmed.

       {¶2} On June 8, 2022, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Miller on one

count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), (B), a felony of the first degree

and two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1),

(C)(1), felonies of the fourth degree. Miller entered pleas of not guilty to all counts.

The State and Miller entered into a plea agreement on March 13, 2023, in which

Miller agreed to enter a guilty plea to gross sexual imposition and the State agreed

to dismiss the rape charge and one of the gross sexual imposition charges. The trial

court accepted the plea and found Miller guilty of gross sexual imposition.

       {¶3} A sentencing hearing was held on March 13, 2023. The trial court

ordered Miller to serve a prison term of 18 months, which is the maximum term

authorized. The trial court also gave Miller credit for 306 days of jail time. Doc.

56.   Miller appealed from this judgment and on appeal raises the following

assignment of error.

       The trial court erred when it sentenced [Miller] to the maximum
       sentence for gross sexual imposition when he only pled guilty to
       one count of the indictment.

                                          -2-
Case No. 9-23-27

       {¶4} The sole assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred by

imposing a maximum sentence because Miller was only convicted of one count and

the trial court did not state any reasons for doing so. A review of Miller’s brief

indicates that Miller is arguing that the trial court incorrectly applied the factors

listed in R.C. 2929.12. Our standard of review in this matter is whether the sentence

is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,

2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 10, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (holding that appellate courts may not apply

an abuse of discretion standard to sentencing term challenges) and R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited the review of the

sentence imposed by an appellate court by holding that 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, ¶ 39, 169 N.E.3d

649. A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory

range. State v. Johnson, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-20-48, 2021-Ohio-1768, 173 N.E.3d

94. When reviewing felony sentences that are imposed solely after applying R.C.

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, this Court shall no longer analyze whether those

sentences are unsupported by the record. Our task is simply to determine whether

those sentences are contrary to law. State v. Criswell, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-21-40,

2022-Ohio-2450, ¶ 13.

                                         -3-
Case No. 9-23-27

       {¶5} Miller was convicted of a felony of the fourth degree. The authorized

prison sentence range for a conviction of a felony of the fourth degree is a definite

term of six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,

seventeen, or eighteen months. R.C. 2929.14(A)(4). Thus, the sentence imposed

was within the statutory range.

       {¶6} This Court has no authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to reverse the

sentence on the grounds that the record does not support the trial court’s application

of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial court considered the statutory factors set

forth in R.C. 2929.12 and considered the overriding purposes of felony sentencing

set forth in R.C. 2929.11. The sentence imposed was within the statutory range of

sentences. Thus, the sentence imposed was not contrary to law. The assignment of

error is overruled.

       {¶7} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued, the

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County is affirmed.

                                                                    Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

/hls

                                           -4-