Court Opinion

ID: 9947468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 21:09:39.030412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:28.992578
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. McCants, 2024-Ohio-784.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                    CASE NO. 2023-P-0031

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                  Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                    Court of Common Pleas

SCOTT D. MCCANTS,
                                                  Trial Court No. 2020 CR 00786 D
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                             OPINION

                                       Decided: March 4, 2024
                                        Judgment: Affirmed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Donald K. Pond, Jr., 567 East Turkeyfoot Lake Road, Suite 107, Akron, OH 44319 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Scott D. McCants (“McCants”), appeals the May 1, 2023 order of

the Portage County Court of Common Pleas revoking his community control and

sentencing him to a 36-month prison term.

        {¶2}     McCants’ conviction is the result of his participation in a shooting that

occurred on September 29, 2020. McCants was driving a vehicle in which a passenger,

Martise McWilson, shot out of the passenger window at a person in another vehicle, Troy

Wilmington.
       {¶3}   McCants was indicted on October 22, 2020, on: count one, attempted

aggravated murder, a felony of the first degree, with a firearm specification; count two,

attempted murder, a felony of the first degree, with a firearm specification; count three,

felonious assault, a felony of the second degree, with a firearm specification; count four,

discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, a felony of the third degree, with a

firearm specification; count five, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, a felony

of the fourth degree, with a firearm specification; and count six, having weapons while

under disability, a felony of the third degree.

       {¶4}   On February 8, 2021, McCants entered a guilty plea to count six, having

weapons under disability, a felony of the third degree. The State dismissed the remaining

counts.

       {¶5}   A sentencing hearing was held on March 1, 2021. McCants was sentenced

to 48 months of community control with 12 months under intensive supervision, followed

by 36 months of general supervision. In addition, McCants was required to maintain full

time employment and attend sober support meetings. McCants was informed during the

hearing that any violation of the terms of his community control would result in a more

restrictive community control sanction or a prison term of 36 months.

       {¶6}   A motion for modification or revocation was filed on April 15, 2022, alleging

that McCants tested positive for THC, failed to attend sober support meetings, and failed

to pay the required fines, costs, and supervision fees. A hearing was held on May 2, 2022.

The following day, the trial court determined that McCants violated the terms of his

probation, ordered McCants to pay the required supervision fees. The trial court vacated

court costs and set the matter for a disposition hearing.

                                              2

Case No. 2023-P-0031
       {¶7}   That hearing was held on October 24, 2022. The trial court continued

McCants’ community control. In addition to the previous terms and conditions, appellant

was ordered to attend two sober support meetings a week, and complete anger

management.

       {¶8}   A second motion to modify or revoke community control was filed on April

18, 2023, when McCants was arrested and charged with improper handling of a firearm

and having a weapon under disability. It was also alleged that appellant failed to attend

sober support meetings, failed to complete anger management, and tested positive for

THC. On May 1, 2023, the trial court determined that McCants was no longer amenable

to community control and imposed a 36-month prison sentence with 143 days of credit.

       {¶9}   McCants timely appeals and asserts one assignment of error: “The trial

court erred by imposing the maximum sentence upon Defendant-Appellant Scott

McCants. During the sentencing colloquy, the court failed to consider the purposes of

felony sentencing, pursuant to R.C. 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors,

pursuant to R.C. 2929.12.”

       {¶10} In addition, McCants raises the issue of whether the court’s imposition of

the maximum sentence is contrary to law for its failure to properly consider the factors in

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. McCants contends that because the trial court did not

recite the factors to be considered during the March 1, 2021 sentencing hearing, or any

subsequent hearing thereafter, his sentence is contrary to law.

       {¶11} This Court recently noted in State v. Liddy, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2023-

A-0029, 2023-Ohio-4028, ¶ 15-20:

              The standard of review for an appeal of a felony sentence is
              governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). See State v. Marcum, 146
                                            3

Case No. 2023-P-0031
             Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 21. The
             provision states in relevant part:

             ‘The court hearing an appeal * * * 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 of
             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.’

             “‘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.’” Marcum
             at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St.469, 120
             N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

      {¶12} McCants asserts that because the trial court did not recite the purposes and

principles of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors during the March 1,

2021 sentencing hearing, or the subsequent sentencing hearing for McCants’ community

control violation on April 18, 2023, that the trial court’s imposition of the maximum

sentence is contrary to law.

      {¶13} This Court has held that even when the record is silent, an appellate court

will presume the trial court considered the appropriate sentencing factors unless there is

                                             4

Case No. 2023-P-0031
evidence to the contrary. State v. Dawson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-109, 2016-Ohio-

2800, ¶ 15 citing State v. Kish, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-138, 2011-Ohio-4172, ¶ 8.

“Further, there is no requirement that the court state on the record that it considered the

statutory sentencing criteria. [Kish]. However, the trial court satisfies its obligation to

consider the statutory principles and factors by stating that it considered them. State v.

Brown, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2014-L-075, 2015-Ohio-2897, ¶ 34.” Id.

       {¶14} Consistent with other Ohio courts, this Court has held that including the

purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors

language in a sentencing entry defeats a claim that the trial court failed to consider the

statutory guidelines. State v. Foti, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2019-L-059, 2019-L-060, 2019-L-

061, 2019-L-123, 2020-Ohio-439, ¶ 61. The Tenth District Court of Appeals has held

similarly in State v. Frederick, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-630, 2014-Ohio-1960, ¶ 14:

“[w]e have * * * repeatedly concluded that the inclusion of language in a sentencing entry

affirmatively stating that the court had considered the purposes and principles of

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

claim that the trial court failed to consider those statutory guidelines. State v. Ibrahim,

10th Dist. No. 13AP-167, 2014-Ohio-666, ¶ 20, citing State v. Peterson, 10th Dist. No.

12AP-646, 2013-Ohio-1807, ¶ 31, 992 N.E.2d 425.”

       {¶15} Here, the entry filed on March 2, 2021 states that the trial court considered

the principles of R.C. 2929.11. McCants did not appeal that order, so he may not raise

the issue now on appeal of the May 1, 2023 sentencing order.

              “A community control violation under R.C. 2929.15(B) results
              in a new sentence, as the previous sentence was community
              control. Accordingly, a trial court ‘must comply with the
              relevant sentencing statutes’ in imposing that new sentence.
                                            5

Case No. 2023-P-0031
               State v. Hart, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1204, 2019- Ohio-
               3926, ¶ 6, citing State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362, 2016-
               Ohio-8127, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13,
               2004-Ohio-7110, 821 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 17 (additional citation
               omitted.); Alexander at ¶ 7 (citations omitted.).”

State v. Woody, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-21-007, 2021-Ohio-3861, ¶ 15.

       {¶16} The May 1, 2023 entry states “[w]eighing all factors, a prison term is

consistent with the purpose and principles of 2929.11(A) and the Defendant is no longer

amenable to community control sanctions.” McCants, in his brief, concedes that the entry

contains R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 language. This Court has held that this language

included in a sentencing entry is enough to defeat a claim that the trial court failed to

consider the guidelines. Foti, 2020-Ohio-439, ¶ 61. Further, absent any evidence to the

contrary, even where silent, this Court must presume that the trial court considered all the

relevant statutory factors. Dawson, 2016-Ohio-2800, ¶ 15.

       {¶17} McCants’ sentence was within statutory guidelines articulated in R.C.

2929.14, and he was notified during the March 1, 2021 hearing that a violation of his

community control would result in an imposition of 36 months of imprisonment.

       {¶18} The transcripts from the March 1, 2021 hearing indicate that the trial court

stated on the record that it reviewed and considered McCant’s presentence investigation

report. The trial court stated further that, “I do think you don’t realize how serious this was

in your role in it * * * the underlying offense here is incredibly violent * * *.” During the April

28, 2023, revocation hearing, the trial court stated, “[M]y concern is he just keeps having

violations over and over again.”

                                                6

Case No. 2023-P-0031
       {¶19} The record does not indicate that the trial court neglected to consider the

required statutory principles and factors. Absent any evidence otherwise, this Court must

presume that the trial court considered the relevant principles and factors.

       {¶20} McCants has failed to demonstrate that his conviction is clearly and

convincingly unsupported by the record or contrary to law.

       {¶21} For the foregoing reasons, McCants sole assignment of error is without

merit, and we affirm the order of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

                                            7

Case No. 2023-P-0031