State v. FeidlerState v. Feidler
Michael A. Partlow, P.O. Box 1562, Stow, OH 44224 (For Defendant-Appellant).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jeremy Feidler (“appellant“), appeals from the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant to consecutive prison terms on his convictions of vandalism and aggravated menacing. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶2} On October 12, 2022, the Trumbull County Grand Jury returned a three-count indictment charging appellant with vandalism, a fourth-degree felony in violation of
{¶3} Appellant entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment on October 25, 2022. No bond was set.
{¶4} On November 2, 2022, appellant filed a motion for leave to file plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. A competency evaluation was ordered on January 19, 2023. A competency hearing was held on March 2, 2023. The State and appellant stipulated to the competency report submitted by the Forensic Psychiatric Center of Northeast Ohio, Inc. On March 7, 2023, the trial court concluded that appellant was incapable of understanding the nature and objectives of the proceedings or assisting in his own defense due to his mental condition at the time, but there was a substantial probability that appellant would become capable within six months with a course of treatment. Appellant was committed to Heartland Behavioral Healthcare for treatment.
{¶5} On June 29, 2023, a second competency hearing was held. The parties stipulated to the report filed by Heartland Behavioral Healthcare. The trial court found appellant to be competent to stand trial.
{¶6} On September 14, 2023, appellant appeared with counsel, waived his rights, and entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 as charged in the indictment. The remaining charge was dismissed. A presentence investigation (“PSI“) was ordered.
{¶7} A sentencing hearing was held on October 19, 2023. The trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of eighteen months on Count 1 and a prison term of
{¶8} Appellant timely appeals and raises a single assignment of error: “[t]he trial court erred by sentencing appellant to two terms of imprisonment, to be served consecutively with one another, as the record does not support such a sentence.” We disagree.
{¶9} ”
{¶10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that while ”
{¶11} Appellant asserts that the “standard for felony sentencing essentially amounts to no review at all, assuming a trial court stays within whatever sentencing range is established by statute.” This Court has previously viewed such claim “as a challenge to the constitutionality of
{¶12} Appellant‘s argument essentially asks this Court to review whether the record supported the trial court‘s decision to impose a prison term rather than a community control sanction, which this Court is not permitted to do. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, at ¶ 39. However, the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentencing is reviewable under
{¶13} There is a statutory presumption in favor of concurrent sentences.
If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and to the danger the
offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following: (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code , or was under post-release control for a prior offense.(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶14} “In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by
[The] Court has considered the overring principles and purposes of felony sentencing, further has considered all relevant seriousness and recidivism factors. The Court finds the sentence shall be proportional to the Defendant‘s conduct as well as consistent with similarly situated offenders.
* * *
Pursuant to
Revised Code Section 2929.14 , Court finds it is necessary to protect the public from future crime by the defendant, that he has serious criminal history, that due to the conduct of the defendant a single prison term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct of the defendant and its necessary to protect the public to have consecutive sentences.
{¶16} These findings were incorporated in the sentencing entry which provides in relevant part: “[t]he Court finds that consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the Defendant, and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant‘s conduct and to the danger the Defendant poses to the public. Further, the Court finds that the Defendant‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”
{¶17} The trial court‘s findings are supported by the record. Therefore, the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences complies with
{¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.