State v. Riley

[Cite as State v. Riley, 

.]


                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                     MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


 STATE OF OHIO                                   JUDGES:
                                                 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                      Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                 Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
 -vs-

 RONALD RILEY, JR.                               Case No. CT2024-0091

          Defendant-Appellant                    OPINION




 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                       Appeal from the Muskingum County
                                                 Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                 CR2024-0174

 JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed


 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         March 3, 2025

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

 MICHAEL T. HUGHES                               APRIL F. CAMPBELL
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney                  Campbell Law, LLC
 27 North 5th Street, Suite 201                  545 Metro Place South, Suite 100
 Zanesville, Ohio 43701                          Dublin, Ohio 43017
Hoffman, J.
       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Ronald Riley, Jr., appeals the judgment entered by the

Muskingum County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of guilty to

domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)), abduction with a firearm specification, (R.C.

2905.02(A)(2), R.C. 2941.145(A)), and strangulation (R.C. 2903.18(B)(2)). The trial court

sentenced him to an aggregate term of incarceration of eight years. Plaintiff-appellee is

the State of Ohio.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   Beginning on February 29, 2024, Appellant was involved in an ongoing

altercation with his wife, who is the victim in this case. The altercation became physical,

and Appellant struck the victim several times in the face. Appellant also grabbed the

victim around her neck, from which she experienced pain and difficulty breathing. After

Appellant stopped choking the victim, he pulled her hair. When the victim attempted to

take their dog outside, Appellant pointed a handgun at the victim and threatened to kill

her.

       {¶3}   Finally, on March 2, 2024, the victim was able to get out of the house and

call the police. When police arrived at the home, they found Appellant with a semi-

automatic handgun next to him. Several rounds of ammunition were in the magazine of

the gun, and a live round of ammunition was on a stand next to Appellant. Appellant

indicated to officers he was going to kill himself because his wife left him.

       {¶4}   Appellant was indicted by the Muskingum County Grand Jury with domestic

violence, kidnapping, and two counts of strangulation, all with firearm specifications.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea, Appellant pled guilty to amended charges of domestic
violence, abduction with a firearm specification, and strangulation.       The trial court

convicted Appellant upon his pleas.

       {¶5}   At sentencing, Appellant claimed his actions were caused by medical

marijuana he was using at the time.        The State asked for an aggregate term of

incarceration of ten years. Appellant asked for an aggregate sentence of three years and

six months. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of incarceration of twelve

months for domestic violence, twenty-four months for abduction, twenty-four months for

strangulation, and three years on the firearm specification, for an aggregate term of

incarceration of eight years. It is from the June 6, 2024 judgment of the trial court

Appellant prosecutes his appeal.

       {¶6}   Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 

 (1967), rehearing den., 

,

indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous. In Anders, the United States Supreme

Court held if, after a conscientious examination of the record, a defendant's counsel

concludes the case is wholly frivolous, then he or she should so advise the court and

request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Counsel must accompany the request with a

brief identifying anything in the record which could arguably support the appeal. Id.

Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw;

and, (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise any matters the client chooses. Id. Once

the defendant's counsel satisfies these requirements, the appellate court must fully

examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If

the appellate court also determines the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's
request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements,

or may proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id.

       {¶7}   We find counsel has complied with Anders. Appellant has not filed a pro se

brief, and the State has not filed a response brief. Counsel sets forth one assignment of

error which could arguably support the appeal:



              THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING RILEY’S GUILTY

       PLEAS UNDER CRIM. R. 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING HIM.



       {¶8}   We have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing, and find the trial court

complied with Crim. R. 11 in accepting Appellant’s guilty pleas.

       {¶9}   We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.

2953.08. State v. Roberts, 

 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Marcum, 2016-

Ohio-1002. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or

vacate a sentence and remand for sentencing where we clearly and convincingly find

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(l), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to

law. 

 citing State v. Bonnell, 

.

       {¶10} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes

and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and

recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Hodges, 

 (8th Dist.).

       {¶11} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing 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 sanctions that the court

determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state

or local government resources.” R.C. 2929.11(A). To achieve these purposes, the

sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the

offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution

to the victim of the offense, the public, or both. 

 Further, the sentence imposed shall be

“commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and

its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by

similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).

       {¶12} R.C. 2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial

court in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony, and gives detailed criteria

which do not control the court's discretion, but which must be considered for or against

severity or leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the

most effective way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in

R.C. 2929.11. R.C. 2929.12.

       {¶13} 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.

       {¶14} 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.).

          {¶15} The trial court stated in its judgment entry it considered the principles and

purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the balance of seriousness and

recidivism factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.12. The sentence is within the statutory range.

The trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive

sentences. The trial court specifically noted in its entry it found Appellant has shown a

lack of acknowledgement and remorse, and further has a record of prior acts of violence.

Pursuant to 

 this Court is not permitted 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. We find

the sentences imposed on Appellant are not contrary to law.
      {¶16} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with Counsel's

conclusion no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. Hence,

we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant counsel's request to

withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.




By: Hoffman, J.
Baldwin, P.J.
King, J. concur