[Cite as State v. Thomas,
2024-Ohio-5481.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 113641
v. :
JAMONE THOMAS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 21, 2024
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-23-683842-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Sean Drake, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Edward M. Heindel, for appellant.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J.:
Defendant-appellant, Jamone Thomas (“Thomas”), appeals his
sentence for robbery. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History
On August 16, 2023, Thomas was charged with one count of
aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), felony of the first degree, and
seven other robbery-related counts. The allegation was that the victim was lured to
a park by Thomas to play basketball and was robbed at gunpoint by Thomas and his
associate. At the time, Thomas had two fourth-degree felony weapon charges
pending and was on community control for two attempted fifth-degree felonies:
forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31 (A)(3) and carrying a concealed weapon in
violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2).
On December 20, 2023, Thomas pleaded guilty to one of the pending
charges, improper handling of a firearm in a vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B),
felony of the fourth degree and, in the robbery case, an amended robbery charge in
violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), felony of the second degree with firearm
specifications deleted. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation. On
January 16, 2024, the trial court terminated Thomas’ community control and
sentenced him to 18 months on the weapon charge to run concurrently with a six-
to nine-year robbery sentence and upon completion of the prison term, 18-24
months of mandatory postrelease control.
Thomas appeals his robbery sentence and raises one assignment of
error.
Assignment of Error
Thomas’ sentence was contrary to law because the trial court did not
properly consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, or
the seriousness and recidivism factors, when it imposed its sentence.
Law and Analysis
Thomas argues that his sentence is contrary to law because the trial
court did not properly consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, or
the seriousness and recidivism factors. We disagree.
An appeal of a felony sentence is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
State v. Evans, 2021-Ohio-3679, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an
appellate court “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence . . . or may
vacate the sentence and remand the matter . . . for resentencing.”
Id. However, an
appellate court may only take this action “if it determines by clear and convincing
evidence . . . that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Evans, 2021-
Ohio-1411, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Marcum,
2016-Ohio-1002 at ¶ 1, 21.
A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls outside the
statutory range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the trial court failed to
consider the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, and the
sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. Evans, 2021-Ohio-1411 at ¶ 12.
Thomas claims the second condition was violated. The second
condition addresses whether the trial court failed to consider the purposes and
principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Under R.C. 2929.11 when
sentencing for a felony, the trial court “shall be guided by the overriding purposes of
felony sentencing” i.e., (1) “to protect the public from future crime by the offender
and others,” (2) “to punish the offender,” and (3) “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.” Evans, 2021-Ohio-3679, at ¶ 13 (8th Dist.),
quoting R.C. 2929.11. Additionally, R.C. 2929.11(B) states:
A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to
achieve the three overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in
division (A) of this section, commensurate with and not demeaning to
the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the
victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes
committed by similar offenders.
R.C. 2929.12 provides further instruction, detailing seriousness and
recidivism factors the trial court should consider when imposing a felony sentence.
Evans at ¶ 13.
However, “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to
make any specific factual finding on the record.” State v. Phillips, 2021-Ohio-2772,
¶ 8, citing State v. Jones,
2020-Ohio-6729 ¶ 20, citing State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-
2669, ¶ 31; State v. Arnett,
88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 (2000). While the trial court
must consider the factors delineated in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, it “is not required
to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors,
even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.”
Phillips at ¶ 8, citing State
v. Keith,
2016-Ohio-5234, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). Furthermore, the trial court is presumed
to have considered the factors unless the defendant affirmatively demonstrates
otherwise.
Id., citing State v. Wright,
2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.).
Here, the trial court reviewed the presentence-investigation report
that detailed the facts of the robbery case. Thomas had three cases before the trial
court: the forgery and weapon convictions for which he was under community
control and subsequent weapon and robbery convictions. The trial court shared the
consideration shown to Thomas by initially placing him on community control and
allowing him to travel to Las Vegas. The trial court stated, “I’ve considered the
seriousness and recidivism factors and the purposes and principles of sentencing
statutes.” The trial court’s journal entry reflects the same.
The mere fact that the trial court emphasized certain factors and did
not mention others does not lead us to conclude that the trial court failed to consider
all relevant factors. It is generally accepted that “a trial court’s statement in its
sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors is alone
sufficient to fulfill its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Phillips,
2021-Ohio-2772, at ¶ 8, citing Wright,
2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.).
Upon review of the record and law, this court finds that the trial
court’s sentence of Thomas is not contrary to law. Accordingly, the sentence is
affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
________
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, PRESIDING JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J., CONCUR
