State v. Vaughn , 2023 Ohio 1560 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Vaughn, 2023-Ohio-1560.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 30428
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
WILLIAM A. VAUGHN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 22 03 0886
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: May 10, 2023
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} William Vaughn appeals a sentence imposed by the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Vaughn pleaded guilty to one charge of felonious assault, a second-degree
felony. The trial court referred the case for a presentence investigation then sentenced Mr. Vaughn
to a stated prison term of three to four and one-half years. Mr. Vaughn appealed his sentence,
assigning one error for this Court’s review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR
WHEN IT FAILED TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE SENTENCING
FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN [REVISED CODE SECTION] 2929.11 AND
2929.12.
2
{¶3} Mr. Vaughn’s assignment of error argues that his sentence is contrary to law
because the trial court did not properly consider the factors relevant to overcoming the presumption
that he should be sentenced to prison.
{¶4} A prison term is presumed to be necessary for first- and second-degree felonies.
R.C. 2929.13(D)(1). That presumption may be overcome if the sentencing court finds, with
reference to the factors set forth in Revised Code Section 2929.12, that (1) community control
would adequately punish the offender and protect the public given the relative likelihood of
recidivism and (2) that community control would not demean the seriousness of the offense
“because one or more factors under section 2929.12 of the Revised Code that indicate that the
offender’s conduct was less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense are applicable,
and they outweigh the applicable factors under that section that indicate that the offender’s conduct
was more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.” R.C. 2929.13(D)(2)(b).
{¶5} This Court may modify or vacate a felony sentence “only if it determines by clear
and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant
statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,
2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. See also R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Section 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. See also State v. Brunson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4299, ¶ 69. In this
case, however, Mr. Vaughn maintains that his sentence is “otherwise contrary to law” because the
trial court erred by concluding that the presumption in favor of a prison term had not been
overcome under Section 2929.13(D)(2).
3
{¶6} This Court’s review is constrained by the fact that the presentence investigation
report is not part of the record on appeal. When an appellant does not provide a complete record
to facilitate our review, we must presume regularity in the trial court’s proceedings and affirm.
State v. Jalwan, 9th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0065-M, 2010-Ohio-3001, ¶ 12, citing Knapp v.
Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980).
{¶7} The trial court’s decision to sentence Mr. Vaughn to prison was based, in large part,
on the contents of the presentence investigation report. Accordingly, without the context that the
report would provide, this Court cannot determine that there is clear and convincing evidence in
the record that Mr. Vaughn’s sentence is contrary to law. See State v. Shelton, 9th Dist. Lorain
No. 18CA011368, 2019-Ohio-1694, ¶ 8. Mr. Vaughn’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶8} Mr. Vaughn’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
4
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
SUTTON, P. J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
NATHAN A. RAY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.