[Cite as State v. Sims, 2026-Ohio-3936.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-25-00234
Appellee
Trial Court No. CR02024-02777
v.
Stuart Sims DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 6, 2026
*****
Julia R. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney, and
Lorrie J. Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Samuel E. Gold, for appellant.
*****
OSOWIK, J.
Procedural History
{¶ 1} On May 8, 2025, in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, appellant
Stuart Sims pled guilty to the offense of Trafficking in Cocaine, in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(2) and 2925.03(C)(4)(c), a felony of the fourth degree and to Unlawful
Possession of Dangerous Ordnance in violation of R.C. 2923.17(A) and (D), a felony of the fifth degree. He was then referred to the probation department for a presentence
report.
{¶ 2} On July 14, 2025, Sims was sentenced to serve 18 months in prison on the
Trafficking in Cocaine charge and 12 months in prison as to the Unlawful Possession of
Dangerous Ordnance charge, concurrent to one another.
{¶ 3} Sims appeals to this court for a review of that sentence.
Assignments of Error
{¶ 4} Sims sets forth a single assignment of error for our review:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED TO
THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF
COMMUNITY CONTROL AND IMPOSING A PRISON TERM.
{¶ 5} Although captioned as an abuse of discretion, Sims correctly
acknowledges this court’s proper standard of review of felony sentences under R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(a)-(b).
{¶ 6} Our review of a felony sentence is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which
provides that to “increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence,” an appellate court
must “clearly and convincingly find either ...that the record does not support the
sentencing court's findings” or “the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” See State v.
Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 31-32. “Otherwise contrary to law” means “in violation of
statute or legal regulations at a given time. ” State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22,
quoting Jones at ¶ 34, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 328 (6th Ed.1990). It is appellant's
burden to identify clear and convincing evidence in the record to show that the trial court
2.
erred in imposing their sentence. State v. Anderson, 2025-Ohio-5732, ¶ 8 (6th Dist.),
citing State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-3860 (6th Dist.). State v. Salmon, 2026-Ohio-1896, ¶
22 (6th Dist.).
The Presumption of Community Control
{¶ 7} Sims argues, without citation to legal authority, that the offenses to which he
pled guilty carry with them the presumption of community control over imprisonment
and hence, the imposition of a prison sentence would be contrary to law. However, we
have consistently held that the presumption of community control set forth in
R.C.2929.13(B)(1)(a) applies only when a defendant pleads guilty to a singular
nonviolent felony of the fourth or fifth degree. See State v. McQuin, 2026-Ohio-894, ¶ 27
(6th Dist.), citing to State v. Boswell, 2019-Ohio-2949, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.). Sims pled guilty
to multiple offenses. Therefore, in his case, the presumption in favor of community
control does not apply.
Mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.11
{¶ 8} Sims further argues that the trial court did not take into consideration his
lack of prior criminal history and the likelihood of reoffending and therefore failed to
consider appropriate mitigating factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.11.
{¶ 9} However, since the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio6729, ¶ 42, the law governing appellate review of a trial court's consideration of R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing a sentence is clear: R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit
an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its
judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance
3.
with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Bowles, 2021-Ohio-4401, ¶ 7 (6th Dist.), quoting
Jones at ¶ 42. State v. Kynard, 2026-Ohio-758, ¶ 11-12 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 10} This does not mean that a sentence cannot be “otherwise contrary to law”
for other reasons. For example, the Supreme Court determined that a sentence was
“contrary to law” because it 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.” State v. Fowler, 2022-Ohio-3499, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.).
The Introduction by the State of Outside Information at the Sentencing Hearing
{¶ 11} Sims claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing when the State made
allegations that he was still in possession of a firearm during the pendency of the case.
The State made these allegations based upon social media posts. Defense counsel
interposed objections, pointing out the issues with the veracity and timeliness of the
social media posts. Sims further argues and speculates that the introduction of social
media posts “creates a clear possibility of bias at the time of sentencing.”
{¶ 12} Indeed, this court has found that the trial court must only consider what is
properly on the record at sentencing and cannot rely on information outside of the record.
Id. at ¶ 15. However, in this instance, it is important to note that the trial court
specifically indicated that it would not consider the information revealed by the State to
be a factor when it formulated its sentence to be imposed on Sims. The court stated at
sentencing:
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Westmeyer, my sentence doesn't reflect
anything related to the information that the State has provided in
reviewing the defendant's record, although the juvenile adjudications or
4.
juvenile contacts with the Court did show dismissals without prejudice
or Juvenile Rule 29 dismissals where the first time offenders, they’re
given an opportunity to go through programming in lieu of an
adjudication.
Based on the nature of these charges and
convictions that were pled to, and the Court is also permitted to
consider charges that were dismissed as part of the plea agreement, and
the weapon involved being a Glock that was modified with a Glock
switch being installed to render it fully automatic, and the trafficking
charge that was convicted of as well as the possession.
The Court went on:
THE COURT: The court has considered the record, the oral
statement …. the pre-sentence investigation report that was prepared as
well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under 2929.11. The
Court has balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under
2929.12.
The Court then concluded:
THE COURT: The court finds that defendant is not amenable to
community control, that prison is consistent with the purposes of
2929.11.
{¶ 13} Thus, on this record, appellant has not sustained his burden to
point to clear and convincing evidence that the trial court relied on information
outside the record. See Salmon, 2026-Ohio-1896, at ¶ 31 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 14} Contrary to Sims’ claims, the record unmistakably establishes that the
trial court did not consider the social media posts offered by the State at sentencing.
The trial court went on to articulate other sentencing considerations. Thus, the court
fashioned its sentence for reasons independent from the social media posts.
{¶ 15} Further, the trial court stated that it had considered the purposes and
principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors
5.
under R.C. 2929.12. Thus, the record establishes that the trial court did not sentence
Sims based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside
those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
Conclusion
{¶ 16} Upon consideration of Sims’ arguments and our review under R.C.
2953.08, we cannot conclude that the record clearly and convincingly find either that the
record does not support the sentencing court's findings or the sentence is otherwise
contrary to law.
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Lucas County Common Pleas
Court is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Thomas J. Osowik, P.J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J
JUDGE
Charles Sulek, J
CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
6.