[Cite as State v. Whitsel,
2019-Ohio-4313.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
:
STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2019-05-043
Appellee : OPINION
10/21/2019
- vs - :
JOSEPH A. WHITSEL, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
Case No. 18CR34726
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice
Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee
Kane Law Offices, Travis Kane, 130 W. 2nd Street, Suite 460, Dayton, Ohio 45402, for
appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph Whitsel, appeals the sentence imposed by the Warren
County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.1
{¶ 2} On November 13, 2018, Whitsel was indicted for possession of hashish, drug
trafficking, possession of drugs, having weapons under disability, possession of criminal
tools, and two counts of operating a vehicle while under the influence.
1. Pursuant to Loc.R. (6)(A), we sua sponte remove this appeal from the accelerated calendar for the purpose of
issuing this opinion.
Warren CA2019-05-043
{¶ 3} The charges stemmed from an incident where Whitsel was pulled over for
speeding. When the officer approached, he noticed the odor of marijuana coming from
inside Whitsel's vehicle. Whitsel later consented to a search of his vehicle, cell phone, and
residence. During the vehicle search, law enforcement found packaged bags of marijuana
along with $630.00 in cash. A search of Whitsel's cell phone revealed text messages
suggesting that he was involved in the trafficking of marijuana. During the search of his
residence, law enforcement seized 732 grams of marijuana and 718 grams of hashish. Law
enforcement also seized two handguns and a shotgun, which Whitsel was prohibited from
possessing due to a prior robbery conviction.
{¶ 4} On February 19, 2019, Whitsel pled guilty to trafficking in marijuana in violation
of R.C. 2925.03, a fourth-degree felony, and having weapons while under disability in
violation of R.C. 2913.13(A)(2), a third-degree felony. The trial court sentenced Whitsel to a
six-month prison term for trafficking and a two-year prison term for having weapons under
disability and ordered those terms be served concurrently. Whitsel now appeals, raising one
assignment of error for review:
{¶ 5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING A SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS
IN PRISON.
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Whitsel argues that the record does not support
the trial court's sentencing decision. We find no merit to Whitsel's argument.
{¶ 7} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth
in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and
convincingly contrary to law. State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-
Ohio-4822, ¶ 8. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence
only if, by clear and convincing evidence, "the record does not support the trial court's
findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v.
-2-
Warren CA2019-05-043
Harp, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-12-096, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶ 7.
{¶ 8} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court
"considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C.
2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant within the
permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-
Ohio-2890, ¶ 8. Thus, this court may "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only
when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2)
unsupported by the record." State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221,
2016-Ohio-2970, ¶
1.
{¶ 9} When a defendant is sentenced, a trial court is not required to consider each
sentencing factor, "but rather to exercise its discretion in determining whether the sentence
satisfies the overriding purpose of Ohio's sentencing structure." State v. Stamper, 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2012-08-166, 2013-Ohio-5669, ¶ 11. The factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 are
nonexclusive, and R.C. 2929.12 explicitly permits a trial court to consider any relevant factors
in imposing a sentence. State v. Landingham, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2017-08-127 and
CA2017-08-128,
2018-Ohio-1568, ¶ 9.
{¶ 10} Following review, we find the trial court did not err in its sentencing decision.
The record reflects that Whitsel's sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law
because the trial court sentenced him within the permissible statutory range after considering
the presentence-investigative report ("PSI"), the purposes and principles of sentencing, and
the relevant seriousness and recidivism factors.
{¶ 11} On appeal, Whitsel concedes that the two-year term of incarceration is within
the statutory range for a third-degree felony. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(3). Nevertheless, Whitsel
argues that his sentence is contrary to law because it is not supported in the record under
R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. In support, Whitsel alleges that he is seeking voluntary
-3-
Warren CA2019-05-043
treatment for his substance abuse issues. Whitsel further disagrees with the trial court's
sentencing analysis and points to recommendations and findings contained in the PSI that
indicated he was only a moderate risk for recidivism and would do well on probation.
{¶ 12} However, contrary to Whitsel's position on appeal, the trial court did adequately
consider the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. This is
evidenced by review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the trial court's
sentencing entry. During sentencing, the trial court noted that Whitsel had made progress
since his arrest and had been cooperative throughout the proceedings:
Mr. Whitsel, you represent sort of the difficult decision that a
Judge has to make because you've been doing well on
supervision and since you've been on pretrial, since you've been
involved in this case, this goes all the way back to the time of
your arrest, where you were cooperative, you consented to the
search of your phone, to the search of your residence, and you
agreed to assist in essentially the prosecution of yourself in this
case. You did well on pretrial, you have a job, there is every
reason for me to believe that you will succeed if I put you on
probation.
The trial court then continued by addressing the seriousness of Whitsel's conduct, his prior
criminal history, and the need for a term of incarceration. Specifically, the trial court
addressed concerns that Whitsel continued to illegally possess firearms:
But, that's the good side. The bad side is that your record is
terrible and there is no set of circumstances under which you
should be in possession of or anywhere near a firearm. With
your criminal history, not only the burglary, you also have a prior
CCW that was pled down back in 1999, so you have been
convicted of a weapons offense before and I cannot put you on
probation for this. To put you straight back in the community or
have you serve local jail, would seriously demean this offense. It
is not consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing,
including punishment, deterrence, and protection of the public.
{¶ 13} The trial court also memorialized its finding within the sentencing entry, finding
that Whitsel was "not amenable to an available community control sanction" and "prison is
consistent with the purposes and principles" of R.C. 2929.11. Whitsel disagrees with the trial
-4-
Warren CA2019-05-043
court's sentencing decision and the manner that the trial court balanced the relevant factors
set forth under both R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. But, as this court has stated previously,
"[t]he trial court, in imposing a sentence, determines the weight afforded to any particular
statutory factors, mitigating grounds, or other relevant circumstances." State v. Steger, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2016-03-059, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18, citing State v. Stubbs, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 13AP-810,
2014-Ohio-3696, ¶ 16. "The fact that the trial court chose to weigh
various sentencing factors differently than how [Whitsel] would have weighed them does not
mean the trial court erred in imposing [Whitsel's] sentence." State v. Abrams, 12th Dist.
Clermont Nos. CA2017-03-018 and CA2017-03-019,
2017-Ohio-8536, ¶ 17. As a result, we
find the trial court did not err in its sentencing decision. Whitsel's sole assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶ 14} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
-5-
