STATE OF OHIO v. ROBIN ATCHISON
Appellate Case No. 2017-CA-76; Trial Court Case No. 2017-CR-413
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY
June 22, 2018
2018-Ohio-2419
(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Rendered on the 22nd day of June, 2018.
ANDREW P. PICKERING, Atty. Reg. No. 0068770, Clark County Prosecutor‘s Office, Appellate Division, 50 E. Columbia Street, 4th Floor, Springfield, Ohio 45501
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ADAM J. ARNOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0088791, 120 W. Second Street, Suite 1717, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
{¶ 1} Robin Atchison pled guilty in the Clark County Common Pleas Court to a Bill of Information charging a single count of forgery, in violation of
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} The prosecutor‘s summary attached to the presentence investigation (“PSI”) reveals the following facts:
{¶ 3} On March 24, 2014, Heartland Federal Credit Union (“Heartland”) received notice that it had incurred losses of $7,984 from four counterfeit cashier‘s checks, which were written to individuals in Arizona, Virginia, California and Florida. Heartland later learned that 444 counterfeit checks were presented for payment throughout the United States, which totaled $1,030,735.14. Locally, Heartland incurred a loss of $21,972 from the counterfeit checks that were cleared.
{¶ 4} An investigation by Heartland led to Atchison, who had opened an account and obtained a legitimate cashier‘s check. The history of Atchison‘s conduct revealed that she would purchase cashier‘s checks and, subsequently, counterfeit checks would be presented by “secret shoppers” to be cleared at Heartland.
{¶ 5} On November 14, 2014, Heartland filed a police report with the German Township Police Department, which requested assistance from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (“BCI”).
{¶ 6} Atchison stated to BCI Special Agent Cooper and German Township Police
{¶ 7} This “secret shopper” opportunity involved individuals who responded to an advertisement to participate in a job where they would receive an agreed amount of money for evaluating various retail establishments. The secret shoppers received checks that, unbeknownst to them, were counterfeit. The secret shoppers were to deposit the checks in their personal bank accounts. Once deposited, the secret shoppers would then withdraw a predetermined amount of money for their services and send the remainder of the money to a third party through Western Union. Eventually, when the counterfeit checks would be returned, the secret shoppers’ personal accounts would be debited for the returned bad check, and they would incur a loss for the money that was forwarded through Western Union. The exceptions to this would be when Heartland failed to timely return the checks or when the checks were cashed.
{¶ 8} Atchison mailed approximately 90 checks a day, four days per week, to
{¶ 9} Atchison stated to the investigators that she was aware that her conduct was “probably illegal.” “Gary” told Atchison that her work was legal, but Atchison told “Gary” that she wanted to stop working for the internet company. Atchison stated that “Gary” sent her a picture of the front of her house and threatened to hurt her and her family if she quit the job or told anyone about her involvement in the scheme.
{¶ 10} Atchison‘s computer was imaged and analyzed in BCI‘s Cyber Crimes Section, which revealed a conversation between Atchison and “Gary” where “Gary” questioned Atchison about her interaction with the police. A scanned copy of a two dollar cashier‘s check from Huntington National Bank was also located on Atchison‘s computer.
{¶ 11} Atchison reached a plea agreement with the State and pled guilty to a single count of forgery, a felony of the fourth degree, related to her conduct. In exchange for the plea, the State agreed that a PSI would be prepared and considered before sentencing.
{¶ 12} The PSI indicated that Atchison was 49 years old, divorced, and had no prior adult or juvenile criminal record. It indicated that she had three adult children and that her Ohio Risk Assessment Score was low. It also stated that Atchison was raised by
{¶ 13} As discussed above, the trial court sentenced Atchison to 15 months in prison.
{¶ 14} Atchison raises two assignments of error on appeal.
{¶ 15} Atchison‘s first assignment of error is that “Appellant‘s sentence is contrary to law because the Court did not adequately follow the requisite statutory procedures prior to imposing sentence upon appellant.”
{¶ 16} Atchison‘s second assignment of error is that “Appellant‘s sentence is contrary to law because it is excessive, an unnecessary burden on government resources, and the Court did not adequately follow the requisite statutory procedures prior to imposing sentence upon appellant.”
II. Standard of Review
{¶ 17} In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in
III. Sentencing
{¶ 18} “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021, 992 N.E.2d 491, ¶ 45 (2d Dist.). However, in exercising its discretion, a trial court must consider the statutory policies that apply to every felony offense, including those set out in
{¶ 19}
{¶ 20}
{¶ 21} Generally, a sentence is not contrary to law when it is within the authorized statutory range and the trial court states that it has considered the principles and purposes of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors. State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26307, 2016-Ohio-1269, ¶ 25.
{¶ 22} Atchison contends that the court did not expressly state what it considered when deciding the sentence, nor did the court state that it followed the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in
{¶ 23} The trial court addressed the purposes and principles of sentencing in its judgment entry by stating that it considered the “record, oral statements of counsel, the defendant‘s statements and the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶ 24}
{¶ 25} The trial court found that Atchison committed an offense for hire or as part of an organized criminal activity. This was supported by the facts that Atchison scanned copies of legitimate cashier‘s checks, sent those checks to “Gary,” and subsequently mailed out forged checks to numerous recipients. The Court was permitted to impose a prison sentence on Atchison. The trial court‘s 15-month sentence was within the statutory range. Since Atchison had not previously been convicted of a felony, the trial court could have granted community control. However, because Atchison committed a fourth degree felony and was involved in an organized criminal activity, the trial court had the discretion to impose a prison term.
{¶ 26} Atchison further contends that “[her] sentence is contrary to law because it is excessive, an unnecessary burden on government resources, and the Court did not adequately follow the requisite statutory procedures prior to imposing sentence upon appellant.”
{¶ 27} A sentencing court is not required to elevate consideration of resource burdens over the seriousness and recidivism factors of
{¶ 28} Factors “indicating that the offender‘s conduct is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense” include (1) the physical or mental injury to the victim was exacerbated because of the physical or mental condition of the victim, (2) the victim suffered serious physical, psychological, or economic harm as a result of the offense, (3) the offender held a public office or position of trust in the community, and the offense related to that office or position, (4) the offender was obliged by the nature of his profession or occupation to prevent the offense or bring others committing it to justice, (5) the offender‘s professional reputation or occupation was used to facilitate the offense or is likely to influence the future conduct of others, (6) the offender‘s relationship with the victim facilitated the offense, (7) the offender committed the offense for hire or as a part of an organized criminal activity, and (8) in committing the offense, the offender was motivated by prejudice based on race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
{¶ 29} Factors indicating that an offender‘s conduct is less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense include (1) the victim induced or facilitated the offense, (2) in committing the offense, the offender acted under strong provocation, (3) in committing the offense, the offender did not cause or expect to cause physical harm to any person or property, (4) there are substantial grounds to mitigate the offender‘s conduct, although the grounds are not enough to constitute a defense.
{¶ 31} Although Atchison claimed that she was threatened by “Gary” in order to continue her role in the scheme, she admitted that before she tried to quit, she knew that her conduct was “probably illegal.”
{¶ 32} Given the record before us, we cannot conclude that the 15-month sentence was clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record or contrary to law.
{¶ 33} Atchison‘s assignments of error are overruled.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 34} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
DONOVAN, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Andrew P. Pickering
Adam J. Arnold
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter