State v. Auterbridge ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Auterbridge, 
    2019-Ohio-159
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    ERIE COUNTY
    State of Ohio                                        Court of Appeals No. E-18-006
    Appellee                                     Trial Court No. 2017-CR-339
    v.
    Charles Auterbridge, IV                              DECISION AND JUDGMENT
    Appellant                                    Decided: January 18, 2019
    *****
    Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and
    Anthony A. Battista III, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
    for appellee.
    Loretta Riddle, for appellant.
    *****
    SINGER, J.
    {¶ 1} We sua sponte place this appeal on the accelerated calendar pursuant to 6th
    Dist.Loc.App.R. 12. See App.R. 11.1(E). Appellant, Charles Auterbridge, appeals the
    January 12, 2018 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, where he was
    convicted of aggravated assault in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(1) and (C), a felony of
    the fourth degree. Finding no error, we affirm.
    Assignment of Error
    I. THE TRIAL COURT’S IMPOSITION OF NEARLY THE
    MAXIMUM SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN THE
    COURT FAILS TO CONSIDER THE VICTIM’S STATEMENT.
    Background
    {¶ 2} On May 5, 2017, appellant was in an altercation and stabbed a man (“the
    victim”) after being provoked. Appellant was indicted on September 13, 2017, on two
    counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), felonies of the second
    degree, and these counts carried violent offender specifications under R.C. 2941.149(A).
    {¶ 3} On October 23, 2017, a hearing was held at which appellant entered in a
    guilty plea to the lesser included offense of aggravated assault in violation of R.C.
    2903.12(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree. Sentencing was scheduled for January 11,
    2018.
    {¶ 4} At sentencing, the trial court confirmed that both parties reviewed the PSI
    and had no objection to proceeding. The court further addressed whether the victim was
    present, which he was not, and whether appellee wanted to proceed with sentencing
    despite the victim’s account or a victim impact statement not being made part of the
    record, which appellee indeed did.
    2.
    {¶ 5} The court proceeded and imposed on appellant a 17-month prison term for
    being found guilty of aggravated assault in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(1), a felony of
    the fourth degree. The remaining counts against appellant were dismissed. The
    judgment was journalized January 12, 2018. Appellant timely appeals.
    Analysis
    {¶ 6} In his sole assigned error, appellant asserts the trial court erred by sentencing
    him without considering the impact his crime had on the victim in accordance with R.C.
    2930.13 and 2930.14. Appellee contends appellant’s reliance on R.C. 2930.13 and
    2930.14 is misplaced because the victim did not (and is not required to) submit an impact
    statement.
    {¶ 7} We find R.C. 2930.13 and 2930.14 are permissive rules to be followed in the
    instance where a victim elects to make a written or oral statement. See R.C. 2930.13
    (code section entitled “Victim may make written or oral statement to the person preparing
    impact statement.”); R.C. 2930.14 (code section entitled “Victim may make statement
    prior to sentencing or disposition of juvenile; defendant’s or juvenile’s opportunity to
    respond.”).
    {¶ 8} Here, there is no evidence the victim elected to make such a statement, and
    we find that appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law.
    {¶ 9} Accordingly, appellant’s sole assigned error is not well-taken.
    3.
    Conclusion
    {¶ 10} The January 12, 2018 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas
    is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
    Judgment affirmed.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
    See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
    Arlene Singer, J.                              _______________________________
    JUDGE
    Thomas J. Osowik, J.
    _______________________________
    Christine E. Mayle, P.J.                                   JUDGE
    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/.
    4.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E-18-006

Judges: Singer

Filed Date: 1/18/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/18/2019