DocketNumber: No. 2007-L-162.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 1776
Judges: MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
Filed Date: 4/11/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} Procedural History
{¶ 3} Appellant ("Mr. Hubaker") was indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury on five counts: aggravated arson, a first degree felony in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} Mr. Hubaker's convictions stem from two separate incidents that occurred while he was on probation for a similar crime.1 On September 13, 2006, Mr. Hubaker, while intoxicated, set fire to the KS Auto Body Shop. On October 18, 2006, Mr. Hubaker, while attempting to locate his drug dealer in order to purchase cocaine, broke into the next-door apartment. The victim, who was dozing in his recliner chair, was stabbed in the throat multiple times by Mr. Hubaker, who also punctured the man's abdomen. Mr. Hubaker then stole prescription medication from the man's apartment.
{¶ 5} In conducting their investigation of these crimes, Lake County detectives received information from a family member of Mr. Hubaker, in regards to a note he authored, entitled "Confessions of a Sociopath, My Confessions." Their subsequent investigation linked Mr. Hubaker to the crimes, and he was soon apprehended.
{¶ 6} Ultimately, on July 26, 2007, Mr. Hubaker pled guilty to one count of aggravated arson, a first degree felony in violation of R.C.
{¶ 7} At the sentencing hearing on August 27, 2007, the court sentenced Mr. Hubaker to a ten year term of incarceration on the count of aggravated arson and an *Page 3 eight year consecutive term of incarceration on the count of felonious assault, for a total prison term of eighteen years.
{¶ 8} Mr. Hubaker timely appealed and raises one assignment of error:
{¶ 9} "The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to more-than-the-minimum term of imprisonment."
{¶ 10} Standard of Review Post-Foster
{¶ 11} "In State v. Foster,
{¶ 12} "An abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment or law; it implies an attitude on the part of the trial court that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Id. at ¶ 11, citingBlakemore v. Blakemore (1983),
{¶ 13} "We recognize that although the abuse of discretion standard will govern most post-Foster sentencing appeals, there are certain, limited circumstances in which the clear and convincing standard that was left unexcised by Foster, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 14} "Since R.C.
{¶ 15} Review of Sentence *Page 5
{¶ 16} Mr. Hubaker challenges the trial court's decision to sentence him to a consecutive eighteen year sentence for his conviction of aggravated arson and felonious assault. Mr. Hubaker was sentenced to the maximum terms on both counts. Thus, on the count of aggravated arson, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 17} "In sentencing an offender for a felony conviction, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 18} "Although a trial court is required to consider the seriousness and recidivism factors, the court does not ``need to make specific findings on the record in order to evince the requisite consideration of all applicable seriousness and recidivism factors.'" Id. at ¶ 19, citingState v. Lewis, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-224,
{¶ 19} In accordance with these principles, we find that the trial court properly considered and reviewed the purposes of sentencing set forth in R.C.
{¶ 20} A review of the record reveals that the court properly considered the factors enumerated in R.C.
{¶ 21} The court imposed consecutive maximum terms on both counts after finding that Mr. Hubaker "is an extremely dangerous person who poses a tremendous risk to our community. In determining what sentence is appropriate, the protection of this community is paramount." The court found that the random and highly violent nature of these crimes made these offenses more serious than normal. In addition, this is Mr. Hubaker's second random offense of arson. The court further determined that Mr. Hubaker was not amenable to treatment or community control sanctions as he was given that very opportunity to address those problems after his first conviction.
{¶ 22} In finding that that the maximum terms should be imposed in this case, the court additionally noted that Mr. Hubaker's "psychological evaluation * * * quite frankly, is the most disturbing evaluation I have ever reviewed. There are no factors which *Page 7 indicate Recidivism is less likely." Indeed, Mr. Hubaker's presentence investigation reveals he is a tortured individual with sociopathic tendencies and uncontrollable violent urges in which he has killed and tortured animals, as well as abused drugs and alcohol.
{¶ 23} Moreover, "it is well within the court's discretion to sentence a defendant anywhere within the applicable statutory range." Mr. Hubaker's argument has recently been raised and rejected by this court in numerous prior decisions. Murray at ¶ 21. See State v. Lloyd, 11th Dist. No. 2007-L-029,
{¶ 24} We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's imposition of the maximum sentence in this case in which the trial court properly determined these acts of aggravated arson and felonious assault were of a most serious and violent nature.
{¶ 25} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, P.J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concur.
State v. Taddie, 2006-L-098 (4-6-2007) , 2007 Ohio 1643 ( 2007 )
State v. Sebring, 2006-L-211 (4-6-2007) , 2007 Ohio 1637 ( 2007 )
State v. Lloyd, 2007-L-029 (10-12-2007) , 2007 Ohio 5503 ( 2007 )
State v. Weaver, 2006-L-113 (4-6-2007) , 2007 Ohio 1644 ( 2007 )
State v. Haney, 2006-L-253 (7-20-2007) , 2007 Ohio 3712 ( 2007 )
State v. Lewis, 2006-L-224 (6-15-2007) , 2007 Ohio 3014 ( 2007 )