DocketNumber: T.C CASE NO 2000-CR-00894, C.A Case No 19419, T.C Case No 2000-CR-00894.
Judges: FAIN, P.J.
Filed Date: 4/11/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} Because the sentence imposed was neither a maximum sentence, nor a consecutive sentence, the trial court was not required to make any findings of fact. Upon appellate review, it will be presumed from a silent record that a trial court considered applicable statutory factors in determining an appropriate sentence, unless a defendant can demonstrate that his sentence is strikingly inconsistent with those factors. The record in this case, including the pre-sentence investigation report, does not support a conclusion that the six-year sentence imposed in this case is strikingly inconsistent with the applicable statutory factors. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
{¶ 5} "The Court Erred In Failing To Make A Record Of Its Consideration Of Statutory Sentencing Guidelines And Failing To Make Findings Of Fact Supporting Its Imposition Of A Six-year Sentence."
{¶ 6} Smith pled guilty to Robbery, a violation of R.C.
{¶ 7} The prison term that may be imposed for a felony of the second degree is two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years. R.C.
{¶ 8} The sentence imposed upon Smith, six years, was not the maximum sentence that could have been imposed for the offense. Nor was the sentence imposed consecutively with any other sentence. Under either of these two circumstances, the trial court would have been required to make certain statutory findings. R.C.
{¶ 9} Smith has not directed us to any authority, and we are aware of no authority, that would require a trial court to make findings where it is imposing less than a maximum sentence for a second degree felony, not to be served consecutively with any other sentence.
{¶ 10} Although Smith cites State v. Mirmohamed (1998),
{¶ 11} Smith also cites R.C.
{¶ 12} We have previously determined that upon a record that is silent with respect to the trial court's consideration of the factors set forth in R.C.
{¶ 13} We find no striking inconsistency in the case before us. We have reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report, which indicates that the offense for which Smith, who was then 25 years old, was convicted involved a robbery of a 74 year old man's monthly social security benefit, in the amount of $640. In the course of the robbery, Smith pushed his victim to the ground and punched him three times.
{¶ 14} In determining the seriousness of a defendant's criminal conduct, the trial court is directed to consider whether the physical or mental injury suffered by the victim was exacerbated because of the physical or mental condition or age of the victim, and whether the victim suffered serious physical, psychological, or economic harm as a result of the offense. We have found nothing in the pre-sentence investigation report to reflect that Smith's victim was badly injured, but the age of the victim, as well as the fact that his entire month's social security benefits were taken from him, are factors that the trial court could appropriately take into consideration in determining that Smith's conduct was more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense. R.C.
{¶ 15} With respect to the recidivism issue, Smith was under post-release control following having been incarcerated for over a year and a half for Aggravated Robbery at the time he committed the offense in this case. That is a statutory factor indicating that the offender is likely to commit future crimes. R.C.
{¶ 16} Furthermore, Smith has a prior record of four juvenile offenses, eight adult misdemeanor offenses, and two adult felony offenses, all within a 12-year period. This history is to be considered as a factor indicating that Smith is likely to commit future crimes. R.C.
{¶ 17} Various factors are set forth in R.C.
{¶ 18} In short, based upon our review of the record, we do not conclude that the six-year sentence imposed in this case is "strikingly inconsistent" with the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C.
BROGAN and WOLFF, JJ., concur.