State v. BrattonState v. Bratton
Decided: July 26, 2013
* * * * *
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Claudia A. Ford, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Bruce W. Boerst, Jr., for appellant.
* * * * *
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal brought by appellant, Milton Earl Bratton, II, from the sentence imposed on him by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas after a plea of guilty to violating a protection order in violation of
{¶ 2} In his single assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in its sentence of 11 months on the charge of violation of a protection order, a fifth degree felony and 17 months on the charge of domestic violence, a fourth degree felony, to be served consecutively.
{¶ 3} Appellant asserts that the trial court expressed a “mundane recital” that it considered the record, oral statements and the presentence report and the principles and purposes of sentencing under
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 4} On March 27, 2012, appellant was indicted by the Lucas County Grand Jury for a violation of
{¶ 5} On June 26, 2012, while those cases were pending, a prosecutor‘s information was filed against appellant, alleging that he violated
{¶ 6} On June 26, 2012, appellant entered a plea of guilty to
Felony Sentence Review
{¶ 7} Appellant presents a single assignment of error:
The trial court erred in imposing a sentence of eleven (11) months in prison in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas No.: G-4801-CR 0201201483-000 and seventeen (17) months in Court of Common Pleas Case No.: G-4801-CR-0201202025-000, to be served consecutively, for a total period of incarceration of twenty-eight (28) months.
{¶ 8} In reviewing sentencing decisions of a trial court, an appellate court conducts a meaningful review of the sentencing decision. State v. Carter, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2003-P-0007, 2004-Ohio-1181. “Meaningful review” means that an appellate court reviewing an appeal of a felony sentence may modify or vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing if the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id. at ¶ 44, citing State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473;
{¶ 9} A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing which are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.
{¶ 10} We review felony sentences pursuant to the two-step analysis set forth in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124. First, our obligation is to examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Id. at ¶ 4.
{¶ 11} Should the court be satisfied upon completion of this examination, the decision of the trial court is then reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion means more than an error of law or judgment, but rather implies that the court‘s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶ 12} Our review commences with an examination of the sentencing statutes that apply in this case.
(4) For a felony of the fourth degree, the prison term shall be six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen months.
(5) For a felony of the fifth degree, the prison term shall be six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twelve months.
{¶ 14} The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.
(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 15} With respect to appellant, the trial court specifically found that it was necessary to protect the public from future crimes that could be committed by appellant and that the imposition of consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant‘s conduct or the danger that appellant posed to the public. The court then made additional findings that at least one the offenses was committed while awaiting sentencing (although the record reveals that the allegations contained in the prosecutor‘s information occurred while awaiting trial and not while awaiting sentencing), that the offenses were committed as part of a course of conduct, the harm caused was great or unusual and the defendant‘s criminal history demonstrated that it was necessary to protect the public from future crimes by appellant.
{¶ 16} At the sentencing hearing, the court pointed out that appellant‘s first assaultive case occurred 14 years prior to the sentencing and that, since then, he had convictions for assault in 2001 and felonious assault in 2002, and had spent two years in the penitentiary in 2009. He also had been convicted of a violation of a protection order in 2010, as well as a conviction for domestic violence in 2011. The court also noted that in the cases before the court, appellant held the victim in her car for three hours. He struck her and she had a cut lip and appellant had to be maced by police officers on two occasions. The consideration of appellant‘s record can hardly be considered a “mundane
{¶ 17} Under
{¶ 18} We note that the requirement that a sentencing court must give reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, which existed under former
{¶ 19} Upon review, we find that the trial court made the requisite findings under
{¶ 20} Given the trial court‘s consideration of the record, oral statements of appellant and his counsel, the presentence report and its findings as well as our independent review, we cannot find that imposition of consecutive sentences was clearly and convincingly contrary to law, unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.
{¶ 21} The judgment of the Lucas County County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________
James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE
CONCUR. _______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.