State v. CaffeyState v. Caffey
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
Ronald A. Annotico
Lipson O‘Shea Legal Group
Beachcliff Market Square
19300 Detroit Road, Suite 202
Rocky River, Ohio 44116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Jillian Eckart
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} In this consolidated appeal, defendant-appellant Harvey Caffey appeals his sentences following his guilty pleas to one count of driving under the influence in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-583829 and one count of driving under the influence in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-584481. Caffey contends that his sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to properly consider the relevant statutory factors under
Factual and Procedural Background
{¶2} In April 2014, Caffey was indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury for one count of driving under the influence in violation of
{¶4} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court explained the basis for its sentences as follows:
On all consecutive sentences, the Court makes the following finding. The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime. That consecutive sentences are also necessary to punish the defendant. That these consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct, and when the Court makes that finding, the Court does find that this is his sixth conviction within a period of six years.
And the Court find that his history of criminal conduct, which is extensive, demonstrate[s] that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶5} The trial court further stated, when asked whether it “would * * * entertain at some point a motion for judicial release“:
This is his sixth conviction in six years and he is on probation for two other cases and he just continues to violate the law. He has no regard for the law. He has no appreciation for abiding to the guidelines. * * * I‘m going to you tell something, he is going to hurt somebody. * * * And he comes here today with two new cases that he is violating on and two new DUI cases, and he has an extensive record. * * * He was sent for intensive counseling. So he went through a counseling program.
{¶7} This appeal followed. Caffey raises the following assignment of error for review:
The trial court erred in sentencing appellant by failing to apply the purposes and principles of sentencing in
R.C. 2929.11 andR.C. 2929.12 .
Law and Analysis
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Caffey contends that his sentences are contrary to law because the trial court failed to apply the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶9} We review felony sentences under the standard set forth in
{¶10} At issue in this case is the trial court‘s duty to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in
{¶11} A sentence is contrary to law if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶12}
{¶13}
{¶14} Caffey asserts that his sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider certain mitigating factors specified in
{¶15} Although there is a mandatory duty to “consider” the relevant statutory factors under
{¶16} A trial court‘s statement in its sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill a trial court‘s obligations under
{¶17} Indeed, it can be presumed that the trial court considered the relevant statutory factors under
{¶18} Caffey‘s argument that the trial court failed to consider the relevant statutory factors under
{¶19} The trial court‘s sentencing journal entries in this case state that “[t]he court considered all required factors of the law” and concluded that “prison is consistent with the purpose [sic] of
{¶20} Accordingly, we overrule Caffey‘s assignment of error.
Omission of Findings Supporting the Imposition of Consecutive Sentences in Sentencing Entries
{¶21} In addition to the assignment of error raised by Caffey, the state raises a second “assignment of error,” i.e., that “[t]he trial court imposed a sentence contrary to law and violated Mr. Caffey‘s right to due process when it ordered consecutive sentences
{¶22} A trial court‘s failure to incorporate statutory findings made under
{¶23} Judgment affirmed; case remanded for the limited purpose of incorporating the consecutive sentence findings made at sentencing into the trial court‘s sentencing journal entries.
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.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
TIM McCORMACK, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR