STATE OF OHIO v. ANDRE L. BRIDGES
No. 107281
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
May 9, 2019
2019-Ohio-1769
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.
Criminаl Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-16-602730-A
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 9, 2019
Appearances:
Thomas A. Rein, for appellant.
Michael C. O‘Malley, Prosecuting Attorney, and Maxwell Martin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Andre L. Bridges, appeals the eight-year sentence impоsed by the trial court on his convictions for rape and kidnapping. Bridges contends that his sentence should be vacated and the matter remanded for
I. Background
{¶ 2} After a jury trial, Bridges was convicted of one count of rape in violation of
{¶ 3} This court set forth the facts regarding Bridges‘s offenses in State v. Bridges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105440, 2018-Ohio-1388, as follows:
Bridges first met the victim, L.M., at her sister‘s house on Halloween, 2015. The two talked over the next few days and eventually planned to go to dinner for L.M.‘s birthday. The date did not gо well according to L.M. Over the next couple of days, Bridges attempted to call L.M. to apologize for the bad date. On November 8, 2015, Bridges ultimately contacted L.M to discuss their last date and, after several hours of talking, L.M. accepted Bridges‘s apology. L.M. informed Bridges that she had plans to celebrate her best friend‘s birthday, and they separated. After dinner, L.M. and her friends decided to go to a club for dancing. This was also the same club that Bridges mentioned to L.M. that he wоuld be going to that evening.
Bridges met with L.M. and her friends at the club. After a few drinks, L.M. asked Bridges to drive her home, and arranged for her friends to drive her car to her home. When they all arrived at L.M.‘s house, L.M. told her friends that she wanted Bridges to leave because she did not want to have sex with him. Bridges and the rest of L.M.‘s friends left, with Bridges stating that he was going to come back to L.M.‘s home. Ten minutes later, Bridges returned to L.M.‘s home. L.M. refused to let Bridges into her home until he promised that they would not get physical. Once Bridges entered the home, Bridges and L.M. started kissing. L.M. pulled away and reminded Bridges of his promise.
L.M. and Bridges then walked into her living room, where they laid on the floor together and began kissing once more. L.M. again asked Bridges to slow down. Bridges got on top оf L.M. and started touching
and kissing her. L.M. resisted by trying to push Bridges off of her. Bridges removed L.M.‘s clothes and penetrated L.M.‘s vagina without her consent. Once Bridges stopped, L.M. put her clothes back on and moved to the other side of the room. Bridges eventually left L.M.‘s home. The next day, L.M. confided in her friend everything that transpired the night before with Bridges. That evening, L.M. reported the incident to the Maple Heights Police Department. L.M. then went to the hospital, where she was examined and treаted for sexual assault. The semen discovered on L.M.‘s body was submitted as part of L.M.‘s rape kit.
A DNA analyst analyzed the semen from the rape kit and matched it to the DNA profile from Bridges. The police interviewed Bridges, who denied having sex with or rаping L.M.
Id. at ¶ 3-7.
{¶ 4} At sentencing, the trial court sentenced Bridges to nine years incarceration on his rape conviction, nine years for kidnapping, and 18 months for gross sexual imposition. The court ordered that the sentences for rape and kidnapping be served consecutively, concurrent with the 18-month sentence for gross sexual imposition, for an aggregate term of 18 years in prison. The trial court also determined that Bridges is a Tier III sex offender, and subject to five yeаrs of mandatory postrelease control.
{¶ 5} On appeal, this court affirmed Bridges‘s convictions, but held that the trial court erred in not merging the rape and kidnapping counts for sentencing. Id. at ¶ 24. This court remanded the matter for resentencing. Id. at ¶ 25. Upon remand, the state elected to merge the kidnapping count into the rape count, and have the court resentence on the rape conviction. The trial court resentenced Bridges to a term of eight years for the rape conviction, conсurrent with 18 months on the
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 6} In his single assignment of error, Bridges contends that the record does not support his more than minimum eight-year prison sentence.
{¶ 7} When reviewing felony sentences, we apply the standard of review set forth in
{¶ 8} When sentencing a defendant, a court must consider thе purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶ 9} Under
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} Nevertheless,
{¶ 12} Bridges contends that the record does not support his eight-year sentence because “a review of the
{¶ 13} At the original sentencing hearing, L.M. told the court how her life had changed as a result of the rape. She said that she was unable to work for two and one-half months after Bridges raped her. Shе said that she had difficulty performing even basic household tasks and taking care of her young children, and had to seek weekly therapy for her emotional well-being. She said Bridges‘s crimes affected her financially because she was nоt paid while she was not working, and she incurred extra medical bills as a result of the rape. She said the rape also affected her socially because she was no longer comfortable in social situations or with dating anyone. In his statement to the court, Bridges denied that he raped L.M.
{¶ 15} Also at resentencing, the court stated that in addition to considering what it had considered at the original sentencing hearing, it had considered Bridges‘s extensivе criminal history, which included convictions for domestic violence, attempted felonious assault, and battery. The court noted that although Bridges had served time in prison and been given the opportunity for community control on numerous оccasions, “he has demonstrated that he has not been rehabilitated.” (Tr. 776.)
{¶ 16} The court also specifically stated at resentencing that it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and found that not sentencing Bridges to prison would demean the seriousness of his offenses and not adequately protect society from future criminal conduct by him. (Tr. 775). The court noted further that Bridges‘s eight-year prison sentence was warranted in light of acts regarding his offenses that the court found particularly disturbing; specifically, that L.M. made multiple attempts to push Bridges off but he held her down on the floor
{¶ 17} A trial court has “full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range.” State v. Underwood, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106597, 2019-Ohio-67, ¶ 11. The eight-year prison sentence imposed on Bridges is within the statutоry range for a first-degree felony. See
{¶ 18} Furthermore, the transcript of the resentencing hearing demonstrates that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶ 19} The sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 20} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandаte issue of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J., CONCUR