DocketNumber: No. 22520.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 6241
Judges: DONOVAN, J.
Filed Date: 11/26/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} On August 8, 2007, Shank was indicted for one count of robbery in connection *Page 2 with a shoplifting incident that occurred on July 19, 2007. After leaving the scene with two other individuals who were also arrested and charged as a result of the offense, Shank and his cohorts attempted to flee in a motor vehicle. A loss prevention officer employed by the store confronted the trio outside the store. Evidence was adduced at Shank's plea hearing which established that he brandished a screwdriver and threatened the loss prevention officer before fleeing.
{¶ 3} Shank initially pled guilty to one count of robbery on September 20, 2007. On November 27, 2007, however, Shank filed a motion to withdraw his plea after he became aware that he would not be considered for community control. On the same day, the trial court allowed Shank to withdraw his plea on the robbery charge, and Shank agreed to a new plea arrangement with the State in which he pled guilty to the charge of attempted robbery. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced Shank to a one year term of imprisonment. After imposing his sentence, the trial court stated on the record that Shank was eligible for shock incarceration, transitional control, and intensive program prison.
{¶ 4} It is from this judgment that Shank now appeals.
{¶ 6} "THE SENTENCE OF THE TRIAL COURT IS CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE IT FAILS TO REFLECT ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF FELONY SENTENCING CONTINED [sic] IN R.C.
{¶ 7} In his sole assignment, Shank contends that the trial court erred when it *Page 3
sentenced him to one year in prison because it did not properly consider the sentencing factors contained in R.C. §§
{¶ 8} Initially, it should be noted that pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Foster,
{¶ 9} Bearing that in mind, we recently held the following inState v. Wilson, Greene App. No. 2007-CA-7,
{¶ 10} "The law in Ohio is clear that, `When imposing a sentence within the applicable statutory range, per * * * Foster * * *, the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C.
{¶ 11} After Shank pled guilty to the charge of attempted robbery at the second plea hearing on November 27, 2007, the trial court made the following findings before imposing sentence:
{¶ 12} "The Court: Very well. Considering the purposes and principles of sentencing and the Ohio Revised Code and the seriousness and recidivism factors contained therein, it's the judgment and sentence of this Court the Defendant, Ronald Shank, be sentenced to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for period of one year.
{¶ 13} "We're going to specifically indicate that the Defendant is eligible for shock incarceration, transitional control, and intensive program prison."
{¶ 14} In addition to the above statements, the record reflects that the trial court also considered Shank's pre-sentence investigation report for the original robbery charge before imposing sentence. The court made Shank aware that he was eligible for community control as well. Although the trial court offered only a short explanation of its reasons before sentencing Shank to a one year term of imprisonment, its remarks reveal that it made the proper considerations required byFoster. Pursuant to the holding in Foster, the trial court was not required to make specific findings. State v. Hawkins, Greene App. No. 06CA79,
{¶ 15} Most recently, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision inState v. Kalish, — N.E.2d —,
{¶ 16} As previously mentioned, the trial court sentenced Shank to one year in prison, but stated on the record that Shank was eligible for shock incarceration, transitional control, and intensive program prison. In light of the circumstances involved in his arrest and subsequent conviction for attempted robbery, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed sentence on Shank.
{¶ 17} Shank's sole assignment of error is overruled.
*Page 1FAIN, J. and GRADY, J., concur.