DocketNumber: No. CA2007-03-060.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 1477
Judges: WALSH, J.
Filed Date: 3/31/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} Appellant entered a plea of guilty to felonious assault, a second-degree felony, and to domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term for each offense, and each sentence was ordered to be served concurrently, for a total of five years in prison.
{¶ 3} Appellant does not allege in this appeal that the prison sentence he received *Page 2 was outside the statutory range for either offense. Appellant's single assignment of error challenges the imposition of prison terms, arguing that his prison sentence is contrary to law and unsupported by the record because he rebutted a presumption for prison for his felonious assault conviction and is amenable to community control for his domestic violence conviction.
{¶ 4} In this appeal, we are asked to specifically delineate the standard of review for a felony sentencing case such as the case at bar. The standard of review cannot be discussed without an acknowledgement that systemic changes have occurred in felony sentencing in Ohio since 2006. In response to decisions from the United States Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Foster,
{¶ 5} Having reviewed Foster and numerous cases released afterFoster, we agree with the assertion that the sentencing statute, R.C.
{¶ 6} R.C.
{¶ 7} "(1) If the sentencing court was required to make the findings required by division (B) or (D) of section
{¶ 8} "(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.
{¶ 9} "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:
{¶ 10} "(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section
{¶ 11} "(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."
{¶ 12} Appellate review under R.C.
{¶ 13} After Foster, a trial court is required to make judicial findings only for a *Page 4
"downward departure" from a presumption of prison pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 14} Those statutes include R.C.
{¶ 15} There is no mandate for judicial fact-finding in the general guidance statutes, and, therefore, the trial court is merely to consider the statutory factors. Foster,
{¶ 16} As previously noted by appellant, his felonious assault conviction, as a felony of the second degree, carries a presumption of a prison term. See R.C.
{¶ 17} Notwithstanding the presumption of prison, the trial court may impose a community control sanction if it makes both of the following findings: 1) a community control sanction would adequately punish appellant and protect the public from future crime because R.C.
{¶ 18} According to Mathis, findings under R.C.
{¶ 19} However, the trial court in the instant case made no R.C.
{¶ 20} Appellant has failed to show that the trial court erred in its determination to impose prison when confronted with a presumption of prison for this second-degree felony. Appellant's arguments regarding his felonious assault sentence are not well taken.2
{¶ 21} We next turn to appellant's prison sentence for his fourth-degree felony.
{¶ 22} R.C.
{¶ 23} Given that there is no presumption in favor of community control, Foster at ¶ 69, a judge who does not make one of the R.C.
{¶ 24} The trial court in the case at bar noted in its sentencing entry that it considered whether community control sanctions were appropriate for appellant under R.C.
{¶ 25} As we previously discussed, the trial court was still permitted to impose a prison term for this fourth-degree felony if, after considering the seriousness and recidivism factors, it found prison rather than community control appropriate. See State v. Chandler, Franklin App. Nos. 04AP-895, 896, 897, 898,
{¶ 26} Appellant argues that the record illustrates that the trial court did not consider the applicable statutory factors in his favor. We have reviewed the record before us and find no merit to appellant's claims.
{¶ 27} The record indicates that the trial court considered the appropriate components of sentencing. According to the record presented to this court, the trial court was cognizant that appellant had not previously served a prison term, but was also aware of appellant's criminal history of assaultive behavior and substance abuse, his prior conviction that resulted in this felony domestic violence charge, and the harm caused to the victim. Cf. State v. Urbina, Defiance App. No. 4-06-21,
{¶ 28} Appellant failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings or that either sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 29} Appellant's single assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 30} Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.
State v. Tish, 88247 (4-19-2007) , 2007 Ohio 1836 ( 2007 )
State v. Urbina, 4-06-21 (3-10-2008) , 2008 Ohio 1013 ( 2008 )
State v. Grier , 2023 Ohio 170 ( 2023 )
State v. Shabaa , 2022 Ohio 2437 ( 2022 )
State v. Grier , 2023 Ohio 207 ( 2023 )
State v. Lancaster, Ca2007-03-075 (4-7-2008) , 2008 Ohio 1665 ( 2008 )
State v. Mattes, 2008-P-0022 (9-26-2008) , 2008 Ohio 4972 ( 2008 )
State v. Silva, Ca2008-01-007 (9-2-2008) , 2008 Ohio 4430 ( 2008 )
State v. Limbeck, 2007-T-0068 (6-27-2008) , 2008 Ohio 3255 ( 2008 )
State v. Endress, Ca2007-03-079 (4-7-2008) , 2008 Ohio 1666 ( 2008 )
State v. Hathy, 2007-A-0057 (5-30-2008) , 2008 Ohio 2614 ( 2008 )