State of Ohio v. Ian Craig
Court of Appeals No. WD-14-061
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
Decided: April 17, 2015
2015-Ohio-1479
Trial Court No. 2013CR0195
Tim A. Dugan, for appellant.
* * * * *
YARBROUGH, P.J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing appellant, Ian Craig, to 11 months in prison following his plea of guilty to one count of attempted gross sexual imposition.
{¶ 2} On October 14, 2013, the victim in this case, B.N., filed a report with the Bowling Green State University Police Department, indicating that she was sexually assaulted by appellant on October 3, 2014. In her report, B.N. indicated that she was impaired at the time of the incident, which took place following a late-night after-party in Bowling Green. Upon receiving B.N.‘s report, the police interviewed appellant and several other witnesses. Police also obtained DNA samples from B.N. and appellant. After analyzing the samples at the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, police learned that appellant‘s DNA and semen were found on B.N.‘s underwear.
{¶ 3} In light of the foregoing, appellant was indicted on April 18, 2013, on one count of rape in violation of
{¶ 4} At sentencing, the trial court explained that appellant would be classified as a tier I sexual offender. The court went on to provide appellant with a form notifying him of his registration requirements as a tier I sexual offender. The court verbally recited those requirements, after which time appellant signed the form.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} On appeal, appellant states the following as his sole assignment of error:
Appellant‘s sentence is contrary to law.
II. Analysis
{¶ 7} In his assignment of error, appellant argues that his sentence is contrary to law.
{¶ 8} We review felony sentences under the two-prong approach set forth in
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) of section
2929.13 , division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section2929.14 , or division (I) of section2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} With regard to its consideration of the relevant sentencing statutes in this case, the court indicated the following in its sentencing entry:
In determining a sentence the record, all oral statements, the presentence investigation report, the victim impact statement if one was received, the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section
2929.11 and the factors in Ohio Revised Code Section2929.12 were taken into consideration prior to imposing sentence. The trial court found that a prison term was consistent with the purposes and principles under Ohio Revised Code Section2929.11 .Further, the Court finds that the victim in this case was impaired and that the Defendant has received a huge benefit in the reduction of the charge which the prosecutor and defense have agreed to.
{¶ 12} In his appellate brief, appellant argues that the trial court failed to comply with
{¶ 13} At the outset, we note that appellant‘s 11-month prison sentence is within the permissible statutory sentencing range for a fifth degree felony. See
{¶ 14} Furthermore, the court did not err when it considered the reduction of the charge pursuant to the plea agreement. See State v. Degens, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-11-1112, 2012-Ohio-2421, ¶ 19, citing State v. Robbins, 6th Dist. Williams No. WM-10-018, 2011-Ohio-4141, ¶ 9 (“Ohio recognizes that sentencing courts may consider at sentencing charges that were reduced or dismissed under a plea agreement.“); see also State v. Banks, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. AP-1065, 10AP-1066, and 10AP-1067, 2011-Ohio-2749, ¶ 24; State v. Johnson, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA 32, 2010-Ohio-6387, ¶ 26.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 16} The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, J.
JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.