DocketNumber: No. 05 BE 20.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 668
Judges: DeGENARO, J.
Filed Date: 2/7/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} Jones was indicted of committing an illegal conveyance of drugs into a detention facility in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} As his sole assignment of error, Jones claims:
{¶ 4} "The Court erred as the sentencing was contrary to the sentencing factors."
{¶ 5} Although Jones argues that he should have received no more than a six month prison term, which, notably, is not an option for a third degree felony as it is lower than the minimum of one year provided for by R.C.
{¶ 6} "(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.
{¶ 7} "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:
{¶ 8} "* * *
{¶ 9} "(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."
{¶ 10} According to R.C.
{¶ 11} R.C.
{¶ 12} "(D) The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply regarding the offender, and any other relevant factors, as factors indicating that the offender is likely to commit future crimes:
{¶ 13} * * *
{¶ 14} (2) * * * the offender has a history of criminal convictions.
{¶ 15} (3) * * * the offender has not responded favorably to sanctions previously imposed for criminal convictions.
{¶ 16} (5) The offender shows no genuine remorse for the offense."
{¶ 17} The trial court is also limited by R.C.
{¶ 18} At the sentencing hearing in the present case, the court stated:
{¶ 19} "I have considered the record; the oral statements; the NCIC and other criminal history; the purpose and principles of sentencing under 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors relevant to the offense and the offender pursuant to 2929.12. I have also considered the need for deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution."
{¶ 20} The court expressed its concern that Jones had brought drugs into the facility, not for personal use, but instead for sale to other prisoners. The court then made the finding that the crime was committed while Jones was serving a prison term for other offenses. The court further found that Jones had a history of criminal convictions, including robbery and that Jones has not responded favorably to sanctions that have been previously imposed. Furthermore, Jones demonstrated lack of any genuine remorse. Finally the court concluded that community control sanctions would not adequately punish the offender and it would not protect the public from future crimes. And a community control sanction, or a combination of them, would demean the seriousness of the offense.
{¶ 21} Because the court made the findings required under R.C.
Donofrio, P.J., concurs.
Vukovich, J., concurs.