State v. BurtonState v. Burton
Adam Parker, 11459 Mayfield Road, #309, Cleveland, Ohio 44106 (For Defendant-Appellant).
OPINION
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Jerry T. Burton, Jr., appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to three charges. We affirm.
{¶2} After being charged via a bill of information, Burton entered guilty pleas to failure to comply in violation of
{¶3} The charges stem from an altercation that Burton had with the victim outside her home. Following a verbal argument, Burton retrieved a firearm from one of the victim‘s vehicles that he was borrowing and fired 11 shots into the back of the victim‘s unoccupied vehicle. The victim called law enforcement, and officers located Burton and attempted a traffic stop. Burton fled, however, and officers pursued him for approximately 1.3 miles until Burton ultimately lost control of the vehicle, striking a utility pole. Officers located the firearm, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia with residue in the vehicle. Burton had previously been convicted of a felony offense of violence, which had placed him under disability with respect to the firearm.
{¶4} After Burton entered his guilty pleas, the trial court referred the matter for a presentence report, drug and alcohol evaluation, and victim impact statement, and set the matter for sentencing. At sentencing, the trial court stated that it had reviewed the presentence report, drug and alcohol report, victim impact statement and the statements of counsel and the defendant. The court sentenced Burton to 24 months in prison for failure to comply and 36 months in prison for having weapons under disability, to run consecutively pursuant to statute. See
{¶5} Burton‘s sole assigned error states:
{¶6} “Appellant‘s sentence is contrary to law.”
{¶7} Burton argues that the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence for having weapons while under disability and a sentence above the minimum for failure to comply. Burton contends that the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing as provided in
{¶8}
* * * The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.
{¶9} It is within the sentencing court‘s discretion “to choose the most effective way to achieve the purposes set forth in
[T]he court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offender‘s recidivism, and the factors set forth in division (F) of this section pertaining to the offender‘s service in the armed forces of the United States and, in addition, may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.
{¶11} Burton contends that the court did not “consider”
{¶12} Here, the court stated at the sentencing hearing that it “considered all aspects of
{¶13} Burton further argues that the trial court relied on an inaccurate hypothetical sentencing comparison to conclude that the misdemeanor sentence did not adequately punish his conduct, and then used that as a basis for imposing sentences above the minimum required on the felonies.
{¶14} The trial court‘s statements on this issue indicate that it believed conduct less dangerous than shooting into the victim‘s car 11 times would, in some cases, result in more severe charges than a second-degree misdemeanor. However, Burton makes no argument regarding his misdemeanor sentence, and, as set forth above, we presume that the trial court appropriately considered the felony sentencing factors.
{¶15} Although Burton “is obviously unhappy with h[is] sentence and wishes the court would have weighed the factors differently, the competing factors in
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.