[Cite as State v. Goins,
2025-Ohio-160.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. CT2024-0083
:
BRANDON GOINS :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2024-0060
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 17, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
JOSEPH A. PALMER CHRIS BRIGDON
MUSKINGUM CO. PROSC. OFFICE 8138 Somerset Road
27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189 Thornville, OH 43076
Zanesville, OH 43702
[Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Brandon Goins appeals from the July 17, 2024 Entry of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} The following statement of fact is adduced from appellee’s statement at
appellant’s change-of-plea hearing on May 29, 2024.
{¶3} Officers responded to a residence for a call of a man with a gun; the caller
advised appellant was armed and kicking the front door of the residence. Upon arrival,
officers spotted appellant on the front porch and he fled the scene. Police spoke to the
residents and learned appellant demanded sex from them and they refused, leading to
an argument. Appellant discharged a weapon into the floor of the residence, which the
occupants took as a direct threat.
{¶4} Appellant was charged with one count of having weapons while under
disability, a felony of the third degree, and two counts of aggravated menacing, both
misdemeanors of the first degree. Appellant opted to enter pleas of guilty and the trial
court ordered a presentence investigation. The trial court imposed a maximum sentence
of 36 months upon the felony count, to be served concurrently with two terms of 180 days
each on the misdemeanors, for a total aggregate sentence of 36 months.
{¶5} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶6} “SHOULD THIS COURT REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO
IMPOSE A MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON COUNT I, HAVING WEAPONS UNDER
[Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]
DISABILITY, BECAUSE THE SENTENCE WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
SENTENCING STATUTES R.C. 2929.11 AND R.C. 2929.12?”
ANALYSIS
{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court failed to
properly consider the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. We
disagree.
{¶8} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.
2953.08. State v. Davis, 2022-Ohio-2397, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.) citing State v. Marcum, 2016-
Ohio-1002, ¶ 22; State v. Howell,
2015-Ohio-4049, ¶ 31 (5th Dist.). R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)
provides that we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence and remand
for resentencing where we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not
support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or
(C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Davis,
2022-Ohio-2397,
¶ 9; see also, State v. Bonnell,
2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 28.
{¶9} R.C. 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, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. The Ohio
Supreme Court further elucidated in State v. Toles,
2021-Ohio-3531, at ¶ 10, “R.C.
2953.08, as amended, precludes second-guessing a sentence imposed by the trial court
based on its weighing of the considerations in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”
{¶10} In State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified its
holding in
Jones, supra, stating:
[Cite as State v. Goins,
2025-Ohio-160.]
The narrow holding in Jones is that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does
not allow 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. See Jones at ¶ 31, 39. Nothing about that
holding should be construed as prohibiting appellate review of a
sentence when the claim is that the sentence was improperly
imposed based on impermissible considerations -- i.e.,
considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12. Indeed, in Jones, this court made clear that
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits appellate courts to reverse or modify
sentencing decisions that are “otherwise contrary to law.” Jones at ¶
32, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). This court also recognized that
“otherwise contrary to law” means “in violation of statute or legal
regulations at a given time.” Id. at ¶ 34 quoting Black's Law Dictionary
328 (6th Ed.1990). Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a
sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to
those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence
is contrary to law. Claims that raise these types of issues are
therefore reviewable.
State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22.
{¶11} R.C. 2929.11(A) outlines the “the overriding purposes of felony sentencing,”
which are to “protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish
the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum
[Cite as State v. Goins, 2025-Ohio-160.]
sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an
unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.” R.C. 2929.12 details
factors relating to the seriousness of an offender's conduct, the likelihood of recidivism,
and the purposes and principles of sentencing.
{¶12} A court reviewing a criminal sentence is required by R.C. 2953.08(F) to
review the entire trial court record, including any oral or written statements and
presentence investigation reports. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) through (4). Although a court
imposing a felony sentence must consider the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C.
and the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12, “neither R.C. 2929.11 nor quires [the]
court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 20,
citing State v. Wilson,
2011-Ohio-2669, ¶ 31, and State v. Arnett,
88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215
(2000). Under established law, a “trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence
within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings
or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v.
Sullens,
2022-Ohio-2305, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.), internal citations omitted.
{¶13} The record demonstrates that the trial court imposed a prison term within
the statutory range for a felony of the third degree and specifically considered the requisite
statutory factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it fashioned appellant's
sentence. In the instant case, the significant factor for the trial court was appellant’s three
prior convictions for the same offense of having weapons while under disability. The trial
court noted appellant forfeited his right to have a weapon many times over, and yet
continues to be found with weapons. T. 15. Appellant also had previous probation
violations and an admitted drug problem.
Muskingum County, Case No. 2024-0083 6
{¶14} The trial court imposed a maximum sentence upon the single felony
count and it was within the trial court's discretion to do so. Based upon the record
of the change- of-plea and sentencing hearings, we find the trial court's sentence
was not contrary to law.
{¶15} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶16} Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment
of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.,
Hoffman , J., .and
Baldwin, J., concur.
