State v. Lanier , 2022 Ohio 1697 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Lanier, 2022-Ohio-1697.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
OTTAWA COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-21-029
Appellee Trial Court No. 2021CR004
v.
Jareel Lanier DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: May 20, 2022
*****
James J. VanEerten, Ottawa Count Prosecuting Attorney, and
Blake W. Skilliter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Brett A. Klimkowsky, for appellant.
*****
ZMUDA, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jareel Lanier, appeals the judgment of the Ottawa County Court
of Common Pleas, sentencing him to 17 months in prison after he pled guilty to
aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine and trafficking in cocaine. Finding no error
in the proceedings below, we affirm.
A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On January 7, 2021, appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated
trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(1)(a), a
felony of the fourth degree, and two counts of trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(4)(a), felonies of the fifth degree. Appellant appeared before the
trial court for arraignment on February 12, 2021, and entered a plea of not guilty to the
aforementioned charges. Counsel was appointed and the matter proceeded through
pretrial discovery and plea negotiations with the state.
{¶ 3} Three months later, on May 27, 2021, appellant came before the trial court
for a plea change hearing. At the plea hearing, the parties informed the court that they
had reached a plea agreement wherein appellant agree to plea guilty to one count of
trafficking in cocaine and the sole count of aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine in
exchange for the state’s dismissal of the remaining count of trafficking in cocaine. The
state also agreed to recommended a sentence of community control “so long as there [are]
no bond violations.”
{¶ 4} After a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the trial court asked appellant to articulate the
factual predicate for the guilty, and appellant admitted to selling methamphetamine and
cocaine on September 13, 2019, the date alleged in the indictment. The trial court then
accepted appellant’s guilty plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing following the
preparation of a presentence investigation report.
2.
{¶ 5} Prior to appellant’s sentencing hearing, on July 7, 2021, the state filed a
“complaint of bond violation” and “motion for bench warrant,” in which appellant’s
probation officer alleged that appellant failed to appear for random drug testing on three
occasions, one of which occurred after the change of plea hearing. That same day, the
trial court issued an entry granting the state’s request, issuing a bench warrant for
appellant’s arrest, and ordering appellant to show cause as to why his bond should not be
revoked. Appellant appeared before the trial court two days later and admitted to the
bond violation. The trial court then continued appellant’s bond and set the matter for
sentencing on September 10, 2021.
{¶ 6} On August 17, 2021, the state filed another “complaint of bond violation”
and “motion for bench warrant,” alleging that appellant failed to appear for random drug
testing on August 12, 2021, and August 16, 2021. Further, the state informed the trial
court that appellant’s previous two urine samples “came back as positive dilute” in
violation of the standard conditions of appellant’s drug testing. Additionally, the state
alleged that appellant was no longer residing at the address provided on his bond. The
trial court again issued a bench warrant for appellant’s arrest and ordered appellant to
show cause as to why his bond should not be revoked.
{¶ 7} While the bench warrant was pending, appellant’s sentencing hearing was
held on September 10, 2021. At the outset of the hearing, the state brought the court’s
attention to the fact that appellant violated bond while awaiting sentencing. Nonetheless,
3.
the state retained its recommendation of community control. In response, appellant
acknowledged the bond violations but asked the trial court to impose community control
in lieu of prison.
{¶ 8} Upon consideration of the presentencing investigation report and in light of
appellant’s bond violations, the trial court determined that appellant was not amenable to
community control under R.C. 2929.13. The court expressly found that appellant
violated bond during the pendency of the case and had committed a prior felony within
two years of sentencing. Consequently, the court ordered appellant to serve 17 months
for the aggravated trafficking charge and 12 months for the trafficking charge, to be
served concurrently. In sentencing appellant, the trial court indicated that it considered
the principle and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the
seriousness and recidivism factors outlined in R.C. 2929.12.
{¶ 9} Thereafter, on October 12, 2021, appellant filed his notice of appeal.
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 10} On appeal, appellant assigns the following error for our review:
1. The Trial Court’s sentence of Jareel A. Lanier (“Appellant”) is
excessive and contrary to Ohio law.
II. Analysis
{¶ 11} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that his sentence is
contrary to law.
4.
{¶ 12} Our review of felony sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Under
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and
remand a sentence only if the record demonstrates, clearly and convincingly, 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; or
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 13} Under R.C. 2929.11(A), the purposes of felony sentencing are “to protect
the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to
promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the
court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on
state or local government resources.” To achieve these purposes, the sentencing court
must consider “the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others
from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the
offense, the public, or both.” R.C. 2929.11(A). The sentence imposed shall be
reasonably calculated to achieve the overriding purposes, “commensurate with and not
demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim,
5.
and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶ 14} At the outset, we note that the record demonstrates the trial court engaged
in the appropriate analysis when it imposed appellant’s prison sentences. In particular,
the trial court examined the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11
and weighed the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.1
{¶ 15} We have previously stated that a sentence is not clearly and convincingly
contrary to law where the trial court has considered the purposes and principles of
sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C.
2929.12, properly applied postrelease control, and imposed a sentence within the
statutory range. State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425, ¶
15-16.
{¶ 16} The trial court’s sentence in this case falls within the applicable statutory
ranges for felonies of the fourth and fifth degree under R.C. 2929.14(A)(4) and (5).
Moreover, appellant does not challenge the trial court’s technical compliance with R.C.
2929.11. Despite his acknowledgement that the trial court considered the principles and
1
The trial court also considered the applicability of the presumption in favor of
community control under R.C. 2929.13, but found that the presumption did not apply in
this case. Appellant does not challenge that finding.
6.
purposes of sentencing, appellant questions the trial court’s determinations flowing from
its consideration of R.C. 2929.11.
{¶ 17} In his brief, appellant contends that his 17-month prison sentence was
contrary to law because “the record does not support the sentence * * * insofar as the
Trial Court did not impose the minimum sentence which would effectively rehabilitate
Appellant.” In advancing his argument under R.C. 2929.11, appellant maintains that he
is currently working a full-time job and is thus “trying to become a law contributing
member of society.” Further, appellant notes that the state recommended community
control in lieu of prison notwithstanding his bond violations. According to appellant, he
failed to appear for his drug screenings, which gave rise to the bond violations, only
because he contracted Covid-19. Thus, appellant reasons that it was improper for the trial
court to impose a prison sentence based upon his bond violations.
{¶ 18} In essence, appellant’s argument boils down to a disagreement with the
trial court’s determination that a prison sentence is consistent with the principles and
purposes of sentencing, only one of which is rehabilitation. Appellant contends that the
record does not support such a determination. However, this argument is unavailing
because “neither R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) or (b) permits us to vacate or modify appellant’s
sentence if we find the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of a prison
term following its consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Orzechowski, 6th
Dist. Wood No. WD-20-029, 2021-Ohio-985, ¶ 13.
7.
{¶ 19} In Orzechowski, we recognized that the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, precludes our
review of felony sentences based solely on the contention that the trial court improperly
considered the factors identified in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Id. “In light of Jones,
assigning error to the trial court’s imposition of sentence as contrary to law based solely
on its consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is no longer grounds for this court to
find reversible error.” Id.{¶ 20} Appellant’s argument herein is based entirely upon the trial court’s
consideration of R.C. 2929.11. Consistent with Jones and cases like Orzechowski that
follow Jones, we find appellant’s sole assignment of error not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 21} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant under
App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
8.
State of Ohio
v. Jareel Lanier
OT-21-029
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
____________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
9.