THE STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TROY A. DOYLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Case No: 11CA35
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY
October 29, 2012
2012-Ohio-5464
Kline, J.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Eric Allen, The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, LTD, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.
James Schneider, Washington Cоunty Prosecuting Attorney, and Alison L. Cauthorn, Washington County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Marietta, Ohio, for Appellee.
Kline, J.:
{¶1} Troy A. Doyle (hereinafter “Dоyle“) appeals the judgment of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, which convicted him of breaking and entering. On appeal, Doyle contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to eleven months in prison. We disagree. Doyle‘s sentence is not clearly аnd convincingly contrary to law, and we find nothing arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable about an eleven-month prison term. Accordingly, we overrule Doyle‘s assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, because of a clerical mistаke in the trial court‘s sentencing entry, we remand this cause to the trial court under
I.
{¶3} A jury trial was scheduled for June 13, 2011, but Doyle did not appear in court that day. As a result, Doyle was сharged with failure to appear, a fourth-degree felony.
{¶4} Eventually, Doyle and the state entered into a plea agreеment. Under the agreement, Doyle pled guilty to breaking and entering, and the state dropped the charges for theft and failure to аppear. The trial court then sentenced Doyle to eleven months in prison. In relevant part, the trial court found “the following prison factor[] to be present: * * * Defendant violated conditions of bond in this case, in that he failed to appear for the sсheduled jury trial.” Sentencing Entry at 2.
{¶5} Doyle appeals and asserts the following assignment of error: “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY USING DISMISSED CONDUCT AGAINST THE APPELLANT.”
II.
{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Doyle contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an eleven-month prison term for breaking and entering.
{¶7} We use a two-step apрroach to review a felony sentence. “First, [we] must examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court‘s decision shall be reviewed
{¶8} Initially, we find that the trial court complied with all applicable rules and statutеs. Doyle was convicted of breaking and entering, which is a non-violent felony of the fifth degree. See
{¶9} Next, we address whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing Doyle‘s sentence. An abusе of discretion connotes more than a mere error of judgment; it implies that the court‘s attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable, or uncоnscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). “In the sentencing context, we review the trial court‘s selection of the sentence within the permissible statutory rangе.” State v. Smith, 4th Dist. No. 08CA6, 2009-Ohio-716, ¶ 17, citing Kalish at ¶ 17. Sentencing courts “have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are [not] required to make findings or give their
{¶10} We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Doyle‘s prison sentence. In sentencing Doyle, the trial court determined that he had “violated conditions of bond in this case, in that he failed to appear for the scheduled jury trial.” Sentencing Entry at 2. Doyle takes issue with this particular determination. He claims that mentioning the failure to appear “does not seem to have any bearing on sentencing the defendant for the admitted conduct.” Merit Brief of the Appellant at 5. We disagree. Breaking and entering is nоt an offense of violence. State v. Summers, 5th Dist. No. 94-CA-0243, 1995 WL 768590, *3 (Oct. 23, 1995). And “[e]xcept as provided in [
{¶11} Accordingly, we overrule Doyle‘s assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Nevertheless, we remand this matter to the trial court under
CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
It is ordered that THIS CAUSE BE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS and that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED. Appellant shall pay the costs herein taxed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Washington County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgmеnt into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Proсedure. Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. and McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion.
For the Court
BY:_____________________________
Roger L. Kline, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.