STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - STEVEN S. DROUGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 2016-A-0060
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
March 27, 2017
[Cite as State v. Drought, 2017-Ohio-1415.]
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CR 00393. Judgment: Affirmed.
Margaret L. Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, 4817 State Road, Suite #202, Ashtabula, OH 44004 (For Defendant-Appellant).
O P I N I O N
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Steven S. Drought, appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to attempted felonious assault, a third-degree felony. We affirm.
{¶2} In July of 2015, Daniel Luyando was driving at a high rate of speed on the street where Drought and his family lived. Drought believed his young children were in danger as a result. Drought and other neighbors were upset upon learning that the
{¶3} During the pendency of the charges, Drought‘s bond was revoked and a warrant was issued for his arrest after he failed to appear at a pretrial. His counsel explained that Drought thought the pretrial was not going forward and that his absence was due to this misunderstanding.
{¶4} Drought ultimately pleaded guilty to attempted felonious assault, and the trial court sentenced him to 18 months in prison, among other things.
{¶5} He raises one assigned error:
{¶6} “The trial court erred by sentencing the Defendant-Appellant to eighteen months in prison without considering statutorily-required sentencing factors.”
{¶7}
{¶8} “The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
{¶9} “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court‘s standard for
{¶10} “(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) of
{¶11} “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
{¶12} “A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls outside the statutory range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶13} Appellant concedes that his sentence is within the statutory range. Nevertheless, he claims his sentence is contrary to law because the sentencing court failed to consider and apply
{¶14} Pursuant to
{¶15}
{¶16} Here, Drought argues his sentence is contrary to law because the court failed to consider the factors weighing in his favor upon fashioning his sentence. He asserts he took responsibility for his actions, had no juvenile record, and had never been to prison. He also emphasizes that the victim induced the offense.
{¶17} At sentencing, his attorney asked for community control sanctions with a term of intensive outpatient treatment in lieu of prison. Drought‘s presentence investigation report confirms his illicit drug use. The prosecutor indicates at sentencing that she will agree with the recommendation made in Drought‘s presentence
{¶18} In imposing sentence, the court emphasized that Drought took the law into his own hands by acting as a vigilante. The court also noted that Drought failed to appear for a hearing, which resulted in his bond revocation, and that prison was required to deter him from committing future offenses. The court stated it considered the purposes and principles of
{¶19} Furthermore, the presentence investigation reflects that he has prior convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia, theft, and aggravated disorderly conduct. It also states that Drought has 22 prior traffic convictions and 16 prior license suspensions. Thus, we do not find by clear and convincing evidence that that the record does not support his sentence, and as such, his sentence is not contrary to law.
{¶20} Drought‘s sole assigned error lacks merit, and the trial court‘s judgment is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J.,
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.,
concur.