[Cite as State v. Dufner,
2019-Ohio-1142.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-82
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2017-CR-639
:
MATTHEW L. DUFNER : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 29th day of March, 2019.
...........
ANDREW P. PICKERING, Atty. Reg. No. 0068770, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office,
Appellate Division, 50 E. Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
P.J. CONBOY, II, Atty. Reg. No. 0070073, 5613 Brandt Pike, Huber Heights, Ohio 45424
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
-2-
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Matthew L. Dufner appeals from his conviction on one count of aggravated
drug possession, a fifth-degree felony.
{¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Dufner contends the trial court erred in
imposing a 12-month prison sentence. He argues that the sentence is not supported by
clear and convincing evidence.
{¶ 3} Dufner’s conviction stemmed from his possession of a baggie containing a
mixture of Fentanyl and Carfentanil while he was a jail inmate. He pled guilty to the charge
set forth above, and the parties agreed to the preparation of a presentence investigation
(PSI) report. Dufner appeared for sentencing on April 17, 2018 with appointed counsel
and stated that he wanted to retain new counsel. The trial court continued the proceedings
for one week to allow Dufner to hire an attorney. On April 24, 2018, Dufner failed to appear
for his scheduled sentencing hearing, and new counsel had not been retained. After a
capias was issued for his arrest, Dufner appeared for sentencing on June 20, 2018. The
trial court imposed a 12-month prison term.
{¶ 4} On appeal, Dufner challenges his sentence as being unsupported by the
record. His entire substantive argument is as follows:
In the instant case, the Trial Court determined that the matter was
not a mandatory community control case as Appellant had a prior felony
record and had not complied with the terms of his bond. Transcript of June
20, 2018 Proceedings p. 12-13.
The Trial Court further stated that it had reviewed the record,
-3-
statements of counsel and the Appellant, and purposes and principles of
sentencing under 2929.11, as well as the other sentencing guidelines
contained in 2929.13. Transcript of June 20, 2018 Proceedings p. 11-12.
The Trial Court determined that there were no factors indicating the
offense was more or less serious than that normally constitutes this type of
offense. Id. The Trial Court further determined that recidivism was more
likely based on Appellant’s prior delinquency adjudication, history of
criminal convictions, and previously violating community control sanctions.
Id. The Trial Court found that Appellant was not amenable to community
control sanctions and determined that a prison term would be more
commensurate with the seriousness of his conduct and would not place an
unnecessary burden on government resources. Id. at 13. The trial court then
sentenced Appellant to twelve months of incarceration.
There are other factors that should have been considered. The
charges before the Court were not violent offenses and no one was
physically harmed. The charge against Appellant was not the most serious
of such conduct. Appellant has five children and had employment set up.
Transcript of June 20, 2018 Proceedings p. 10. In addition, drug use was a
factor in the crime that was committed. Appellant stopped using drugs. Id.
Appellant was charged with a fifth degree felony aggravated drug
possession. There was a presumption of community control sanctions.
Even if the presumption is overcome and prison is found to be the
appropriate sentence, as it was in this case[,] [t]he evidence presented did
-4-
not support a maximum sentence.
(Bold font on citations omitted.) (Appellant’s brief at 4-5).
{¶ 5} Based on the foregoing argument, Dufner urges us to find “that the Trial
Court’s disposition was not based on clear and convincing evidence[.]” (Id. at 5).
{¶ 6} Upon review, we find Dufner’s assignment of error to be unpersuasive. As a
preliminary matter, his assignment of error subtly misstates the issue before us. The issue
is not whether the record clearly and convincingly supports his sentence. The issue is
whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the sentence. State v. Folk,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27375, 2017-Ohio-8105, ¶ 5. This deferential standard is
mandated by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which authorizes us to vacate or modify his sentence
only if we determine by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support
the sentence or that it is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 7} Dufner does not dispute the lawfulness of his sentence. It is within the
authorized statutory range, and the trial court considered the statutory principles and
purposes of sentencing and the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors, thereby
making the sentence “authorized by law.” Id. at ¶ 6-7. We may vacate or modify Dufner’s
lawful sentence only if we find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not
support it. On the record before us, we make no such finding.
{¶ 8} At the time of the PSI report, Dufner was 28 years old. He had a lengthy
juvenile record that included a Department of Youth Services commitment and, among
other things, adjudications for burglary, criminal damaging, possession of criminal tools,
drug abuse, assault, disorderly conduct, and probation violations. As an adult, his criminal
record included convictions for, among other things, disorderly conduct, criminal trespass,
-5-
driving under suspension, telephone harassment, assault on a police officer, operating a
vehicle under the influence, menacing, possession of criminal tools, use/possession of
drug paraphernalia, theft, and attempted assault. He previously had served two prison
terms and had failed to comply with community control sanctions. He was unemployed at
the time of his arrest and plea, and the PSI report does not identify any prior employment.
The PSI report reflects that Dufner, who had never been married, reported having five
children with five women, and one of the children was in the custody of Montgomery
County Children Services. He also had a history of drug abuse. His risk-assessment score
was high. He failed to appear for sentencing after the trial court continued it one week to
accommodate him, and he ran from police after a capias was issued. He also failed to
appear for his scheduled PSI interview with the probation department.
{¶ 9} We recognize that Dufner’s aggravated drug possession conviction was not
a violent offense and that no one physically was harmed as a result. The offense also
arguably may not have been more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense,
although he did possess the drugs while incarcerated in jail. As for his claim about having
employment “set up,” the record reflects only that one employer had agreed to consider
him “eligible for being hired” if he resolved his legal problems. (Disposition Tr. at 11).
Finally, with regard to Dufner’s assertion that he had stopped using drugs, the trial court
was not required to believe him or to believe that he would stop committing crimes and
that things would be different this time. Based on the record before us--including Dufner’s
lengthy criminal history over an extended period of years, his prior prison terms, his prior
failure to complete community control, his failure to appear for appointments, and a
demonstrated general lack of responsibility—we do not find that the record clearly and
-6-
convincingly fails to support his 12-month prison sentence.
{¶ 10} Dufner’s assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Clark
County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
.............
WELBAUM, P.J., concurs.
FROELICH, J., concurs:
{¶ 11} I would not consider any ORAS score in determining whether the sentence
was in error. However, even without such consideration, the record still does not clearly
and convincingly fail to support the sentence.
Copies sent to:
Andrew P. Pickering
P.J. Conboy, II
Hon. Richard J. O’Neill
