2004 Ohio 6204 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2004
Lead Opinion
{¶ 2} "I. The trial court erred by sentencing the appellant to the maximum prison term.
{¶ 3} "II. The trial court erred by sentencing the appellant to consecutive sentences."
{¶ 4} In case number 03CRI07321, appellant was charged with a single count of forgery, and a single count of receiving stolen property. In case number 03CRI03102, appellant was charged with one count of forgery, and two counts of identification fraud. In case number 04CRI01004, appellant was charged with a single count of forgery.
{¶ 5} On January 15, 2004, appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of forgery and one count of identification fraud in case number 03CRI03102; one count of forgery in case number 03CRI07321, and to the single count in case number 04CRI01004.
{¶ 6} On March 18, 2004, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. In case number 03CRI03102, the court sentenced appellant to the maximum prison sentence on both counts, and ran those sentences concurrent with one another. In case number 03CRI07321, the court sentenced appellant to the maximum prison sentence, and ran that sentence consecutive to those imposed in case number 03CRI03102. In case number 04CRI01004, the court sentenced appellant to five years of community control, consecutive to the sentences in the two prior cases. The aggregate sentence in this matter was 30 months in prison, and 5 years of community control sanctions. The court also ordered appellant to complete a program at a community based correctional facility as a condition of his community control sanctions.
{¶ 8} R.C.
{¶ 9} R.C.
{¶ 10} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court conducted an extensive dialogue with the appellant, and advised him it believed the identity theft is a more serious offense than the others. The court noted the offenses were all committed as part of an organized criminal activity. The court found the potential for recidivism is very clear, because the pre-sentence investigation demonstrated appellant had at least 8 felony convictions in the past, and had served at least 3 prison terms. The court added the most offensive part of the case was that while appellant was out on a recognizance bond on the first case, he committed the offenses in the subsequent 2 cases. The court found appellant had not responded favorably in the past to probation or parole, and had not acknowledged his problems with chemical abuse. The trial court did not recite the words contained in the statute, but it is clear from the court's discussion of appellant's prior record and his behavior during the course of these three offenses, that the court believed appellant poses the greatest likelihood of committing future crimes. We find the trial court is not required to parrot the words of the statute, but rather, to explain its reasons. The court has done so here.
{¶ 11} The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 13} R.C.
{¶ 14} Appellant concedes the trial court found a consecutive sentence is necessary and not disproportionate to the seriousness of the felonies and is necessary under the law of Ohio and under the facts of the case, to protect society from the criminal conduct of the appellant.
{¶ 15} The trial court also found appellant had committed offenses in the subsequent two cases while out on a recognizance bond on the first offense.
{¶ 16} We find the above is sufficient to permit the court to run prison sentences for case numbers 03CRI03102, and 03CRI07321, consecutively.
{¶ 17} As for case number 04CRI01004, the court sentenced appellant to community control. Appellant argues the court was required to make the R.C.
{¶ 18} In the case of State v. Kinder, (August 13, 2004), Delaware Appellate No. 03CAA12075,
{¶ 19} The only questionable issue is that the trial court ordered appellant to complete a term in a community-based correctional facility for purposes of alcohol and drug rehabilitation. This portion of the community control sanction is arguably within the definition of imprisonment.
{¶ 20} The trial court made the necessary findings to justify running the sentence in the second case consecutive to the first. This court sees no reason to require the court to repeat those same findings in sentencing the appellant to community control including a stay in a community-based correctional facility. It is obvious from the record the trial court knows the standards, and has applied them to this case.
{¶ 21} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Gwin, P.J., and Boggins, J., concur.
Hoffman, J. concurs in part, dissents in part.
Dissenting Opinion
{¶ 23} I concur in the majority's analysis and disposition of appellant's second assignment of error. However, I disagree with the majority's disposition of appellant's first assignment of error.
{¶ 24} I would vacate appellant's sentence and remand the matter for resentencing because the trial court failed to make the requisite finding(s) to support the imposition of the maximum sentence.