STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CHARLES BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
No. 100874
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
October 2, 2014
2014-Ohio-4381
BEFORE: Celebrezze, P.J., Rocco, J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-13-574953-A; RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 2, 2014
Christopher M. Kelley
75 Public Square
Suite 700
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Brian M. McDonough
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Charles Brown, appeals from his two-year term of imprisonment. After a careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm appellant‘s sentence.
I. Procedural History
{¶2} On June 4, 2013, appellant was indicted and charged with three counts of rape in violation of
{¶3} On November 14, 2013, appellant and the state reached a plea agreement. Appellant withdrew his formerly entered plea of not guilty and pled guilty to an amended Count 1, sexual battery, in violation of
{¶4} On December 17, 2013, appellant received the maximum sentence of two years on his sexual battery conviction. See former
II. Law and Analysis
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court‘s imposition of a maximum sentence of two years is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
{¶7} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law “where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶8}
[t]he 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.
{¶9} Under
{¶10} We note that while the court must consider the principles and purposes outlined above, it is not required to use particular language or engage in any specific findings of its consideration of these factors under
{¶11} Based on the record before us, we find that appellant‘s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Here, the trial court imposed a sentence within the sentencing range and adequately considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶12} Moreover, despite appellant‘s position to the contrary, the record reflects that the trial court carefully considered the relevant mitigating factors detailed in appellant‘s Mitigation of Penalty Report, but found that the aggravating factors weighed more heavily in favor of a maximum sentence. Specifically, the court stated:
Based on the findings that the court has made with regard to the seriousness and recidivism factors, the court finds that a sentence of community control would demean the seriousness of this offense. And based upon this defendant‘s history and the risk of recidivism that is detailed in the mitigation of penalty report, the court does find that prison is an appropriate sentence, and that a maximum sentence in this case is appropriate based upon the seriousness of the conduct and the length and nature of this defendant‘s criminal history.
{¶13} In light of the foregoing, we find that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶14} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶15} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR