STATE OF OHIO v. WILLIAM BEMENT
No. 99914
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
December 12, 2013
[Cite as State v. Bement, 2013-Ohio-5437.]
Boyle, P.J., E.A. Gallagher, J., and Kilbane, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-571792
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Kenneth J. Lewis
Kenneth J. Lewis Co., L.P.A.
1220 West 6th Street
Suite 502
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Daniel T. Van
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor, Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
{2} Defendant-appellant, William Bement, appeals his sentence, raising a single assignment of error:
Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in sentencing the appellant too harshly.
{3} Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History and Facts
{4} On February 5, 2013, Bement was sentenced in Rocky River Municipal Court and placed on probation for his conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence. Following the sentencing hearing, Bement returned home, began drinking, and posted the following threats on his Facebook page for his “friends” to read: “People need to stop shooting up schools and start shooting cops in courthouses“; “I‘m on board. Load up.” Bement further threatened: “Fuck Rocky River Court. Kill your local judges.”
{5} After one of Bement‘s Facebook friends notified the police, Bement was subsequently indicted on two counts of retaliation, violations of
{7} The trial judge questioned Bement‘s reasoning for his threats on Facebook when the trial judge only gave him probation. He responded that “[i]t was just the way I was being spoke to. It was just there was a lot of things building up. It‘s not even just to do with the courts in general. It‘s just a lot of things were getting to me.” The trial judge asked for clarification as to Bement‘s reference to “the way they spoke to you.” He responded:
She was like — you know, like normally you would be given the option of like a three-day hotel stay. She told me she wanted to see me in jail and she didn‘t want to give me that option. And then they were trying to throw on restitution that I already had taken care of, which was like $4,000 and that‘s why my attorney had gone back in the courtroom.
{8} The trial judge further asked Bement the meaning of his threat, “I‘m on board. Load up.” Bement indicated that “[i]t was just a figure of speech. It meant nothing. It was almost like song lyrics.” He further indicated that he did not want to
{9} The court also heard from the prosecutor, who discussed the effect that Bement‘s actions have had on the Rocky River Municipal Court judge that sentenced him, including that the judge “has told her husband and children that they need to be more vigilant as a result of the defendant‘s threat that day.” The prosecutor further read a statement from the municipal court judge, wherein she expressed her opinion that Bement deserves “some jail time.” After acknowledging that “the defendant cannot be kept in jail forever,” the judge expressed her interest in Bement “being on a very, very long and very, very strict probation.”
{10} The trial court ultimately imposed a prison term of 17 months. The court further informed Bement that he was subject to three years of postrelease control with the following conditions: (1) no alcohol and drugs, (2) mental health counselling, (3) anger management, and (4) no contact with the victim, the victim‘s place of employment, and the victim‘s family.
{11} From this order, Bement now appeals.
Excessive Sentence
{12} In his sole assignment of error, Bement argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to follow the statutory mandates of
{14} Contrary to Bement‘s assertion, the trial court was not required to make any findings on the record in imposing a “near maximum” sentence. Indeed, there are no longer any specific findings or reasons a court must give in order to impose maximum sentences. State v. Calliens, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97034, 2012-Ohio-703, ¶ 28; State v. Rose, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-11-214, 2012-Ohio-5607, ¶ 82. Thus, we must determine if Bement‘s sentence was otherwise contrary to law.
{15} The court‘s only guide in this case was the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.
{17} There is still no “mandate,” however, for the sentencing court to engage in any factual findings under
{18} Based on the record before us, we find that Bement‘s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Here, the trial court imposed a sentence within the sentencing range. Bement fails to overcome the presumption that the trial court considered the appropriate factors in
{19} As for Bement‘s claim that his sentence is not proportionate with sentences imposed for similarly situated offenders, Bement did not raise the issue of proportionality at the sentencing hearing. Nor did he present evidence as to what a “proportionate sentence” might be. Thus, he has not preserved the issue for appeal. State v. Burt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99097, 2013-Ohio-3525, ¶ 39.
{20} Bement‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{21} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR