State v. Chatman

[Cite as State v. Chatman, 

.]


                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                   DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


  STATE OF OHIO                                Case No. 25 CAA 04 0025

   Plaintiff - Appellee                        Opinion and Judgment Entry

  -vs-                                         Appeal from the Delaware County Court of
                                               Common Pleas, Case No. 24 CRI 08 0464
  CYNTHIA CHATMAN
                                               Judgment: Affirmed
  Defendant – Appellant
                                               Date of Judgment Entry: October 23, 2025




BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin, William B. Hoffman, Robert G. Montgomery, Appellate
Judges

APPEARANCES: Melissa A. Schiffel, Prosecuting Attorney, Katheryn L. Munger,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, A. Case Thompson, Legal Intern, Delaware County
Proseuctor’s Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee; William T. Cramer, for Defendant-Appellant
                                         OPINION

Hoffman, J.


       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Cynthia Chatman appeals the judgment entered by the

Delaware County Common Pleas Court convicting her following her plea of guilty to

engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (R.C. 2923.32(A)(1)) and sentencing her to a term

of incarceration of three to four and one-half years. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   In April of 2024, an employee of a Bath & Body Works store reported a theft

in progress. Officers arrived at the scene to find cousins Daiza and Marquan Hoston

leaving the store with merchandise. The pair fled from police, but later that day they were

reported for stealing merchandise from other Bath & Body Works stores in the same area.

In addition to in-store thefts, video from the company warehouse showed someone

backing a car up to a service bay late at night, and two people loading the car with

merchandise.

       {¶3}   Later in April of 2024, a detective arranged to purchase Bath & Body Works

candles from Appellant via Facebook. After a controlled buy at Appellant’s home, a

search warrant was executed. Officers found Bath & Body Works merchandise valued at

$8,422.65. Appellant admitted to police she knew the items were stolen, and explained

the Hostons stole the merchandise and gave it to her to sell on Facebook. After his

apprehension, Marquan Hoston admitted to stealing the items, and told police he knew

Appellant because he dated her daughter.

       {¶4}   Appellant was indicted by the Delaware County Grand Jury with one count

of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity as a felony of the second degree. Pursuant to
a negotiated plea, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge and agreed to pay

restitution in the amount of $35,385.30. The parties agreed to jointly recommend a

sentence of community control despite the fact the conviction carried a presumption of a

prison sentence.

      {¶5}   The trial court convicted Appellant upon her plea of guilty.      The case

proceeded to sentencing. The trial court found based upon the number of Appellant’s

past criminal offenses, some involving retail theft, for which she received sentences of

community control, the court could not make the requisite findings pursuant to R.C.

2929.13(D)(2) to overcome the presumption of a prison sentence.          The trial court

sentenced Appellant to a term of incarceration of three to four and one-half years. It is

from the March 11, 2025 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes her appeal,

assigning as error:



             BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THE RECORD DOES

      NOT     SUPPORT      THE    TRIAL    COURT’S     FINDINGS      THAT    THE

      PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF PRISON WAS NOT OVERCOME.




      {¶6}   Appellant argues the record does not support the trial court’s finding the

presumption of prison was not overcome. We disagree.

      {¶7}   Appellant argues this Court must reverse if we find the recidivism and

seriousness factors do not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s finding the

presumption of prison was not overcome pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(D)(2). We disagree
with the standard of review set forth by Appellant in her brief. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)

provides:



             (2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this

      section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the

      sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.

             The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a

      sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence

      and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The

      appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court

      abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized

      by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

             (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings

      under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of

      section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,

      whichever, if any, is relevant;

             (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.



      {¶8}   R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) sets forth the findings the trial court must make to find

the presumption of prison has been overcome:



             (2) Notwithstanding the presumption established under division

      (D)(1) of this section for the offenses listed in that division other than a
     violation of division (A)(4) or (B) of section 2907.05 of the Revised Code,

     the sentencing court may impose a community control sanction or a

     combination of community control sanctions instead of a prison term on an

     offender for a felony of the first or second degree or for a felony drug offense

     that is a violation of any provision of Chapter 2925., 3719., or 4729. of the

     Revised Code for which a presumption in favor of a prison term is specified

     as being applicable if it makes both of the following findings:

            (a) A community control sanction or a combination of community

     control sanctions would adequately punish the offender and protect the

     public from future crime, because the applicable factors under section

     2929.12 of the Revised Code indicating a lesser likelihood of recidivism

     outweigh the applicable factors under that section indicating a greater

     likelihood of recidivism.

            (b) A community control sanction or a combination of community

     control sanctions would not demean the seriousness of the offense,

     because one or more factors under section 2929.12 of the Revised Code

     that indicate that the offender's conduct was less serious than conduct

     normally constituting the offense are applicable, and they outweigh the

     applicable factors under that section that indicate that the offender's

     conduct was more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.



     {¶9}   R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) requires the trial court to make specific findings if it finds

the presumption of prison has been overcome and sentences the defendant to
community control. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), those findings are reviewable by

this Court to determine if they are supported by the record. However, in the instant case,

the trial court found the presumption of prison had not been overcome.       The trial court

was not required to make any specific findings to impose a sentence in accordance with

the presumption of prison. Because the trial court was not required to make any findings

in this case to support its judgment finding the presumption of prison was not overcome,

this Court does not review any reasons the trial court set forth for finding the presumption

was not overcome to determine if the reasons are supported by the record. Rather, we

review the sentence under the standard of review generally applicable to felony

sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), whether the sentence is clearly and

convincingly contrary to law.

       {¶10} Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits this Court to independently weigh

the evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to

determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12. State v. Jones, 

. Instead, we may only determine if the

sentence is contrary to law. 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 post release control, and sentences

the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 

 (5th Dist.).

       {¶11} In the instant case, the trial court found a prison term is consistent with the

purposes of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11, as well as the seriousness and recidivism

factors in R.C. 2929.12. The trial court stated at the sentencing hearing because of
Appellant’s prior record and the dollar amount of the merchandise stolen, she could not

make the requisite findings to overcome the presumption of prison applicable to this case

despite the joint recommendation of the parties. We find the sentence is not clearly and

convincingly contrary to law.

      {¶12} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Delaware County

Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.

By: Hoffman, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur