Appellant's sentence was not contrary to law where the trial court considered the relevant statutory factors, imposed postrelease control, and sentenced appellant within the relevant sentencing guidelines.
Decided 2021-07-19
[Cite as State v. Payne,
2021-Ohio-2464
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2020-12-079
: OPINION
- vs - 7/19/2021
:
QAWI PAYNE, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 20CR36362
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy J. McKenna, for appellant.
PIPER, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Qawi Payne, appeals his sentence in the Warren County Court of
Common Pleas after pleading guilty to one count of possession of a deadly weapon while
under detention.
{¶2} While serving a sentence in the Lebanon Correctional Institution for
committing felonious assault, Payne was in possession of a knife. He was charged with a
Warren CA2020-12-079
single count of possessing a deadly weapon while under detention and pled guilty to that
charge. Before sentencing occurred, Payne completed his sentence for the felonious
assault charge and was released from prison.
{¶3} The trial court permitted Payne to remain under pretrial supervision, rather
than await sentencing in jail. The trial court ordered Payne to avoid illegal substances and
further advised Payne that his behavior during the presentencing phase would play a role
in determining his sentence for the possession conviction.
{¶4} Despite the trial court's admonishment, Payne tested positive for drug usage
multiple times and was also charged with a drug-related felony in a different county. The
trial court sentenced Payne to nine months in prison on the possession of a deadly weapon
conviction, and Payne now appeals that decision, raising the following assignment of error:
{¶5} THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS AS
TO SENTENCING.
{¶6} Payne argues in his sole assignment of error that the trial court's findings
made during sentencing are not supported by the record.
{¶7} While Payne asserts that the trial court's findings are not supported by the
record, the relevant sentencing standard does not require this court to review whether the
trial court's findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are supported by the record.
{¶8} Instead, an appellate court reviews the imposed sentence according to R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences. State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-
Ohio-6729. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court can modify or vacate a
sentence only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence
is contrary to law or that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant
statutes. However, the statutes pursuant to which this court must review a trial court's
findings are limited and do not apply to Payne's sentence. As such, the only question that
-2-
Warren CA2020-12-079
remains for review is whether Payne's sentence is contrary to law.
{¶9} 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.
{¶10} After reviewing the record, Payne's sentence is not contrary to law. The trial
court specifically noted in its sentencing entry and stated at the sentencing hearing that it
had considered the overriding purposes and principles of felony sentencing according to
R.C. 2929.11, and also had considered the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in
R.C. 2929.12. Furthermore, the trial court properly imposed postrelease control, and the
nine-month sentence is within the permissible statutory range for a third-degree felony
according to R.C. 2929.14(3)(B). Thus, the trial court's sentence was not contrary to law,
and Payne's single assignment of error is overruled.
{¶11} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
-3-
