STATE OF OHIO, Appellee v. DEMETRIUS FORD, Appellant
C.A. No. 28504
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
December 29, 2017
2017-Ohio-9294
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nо. CR 16 08 2511
HENSAL, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Demetrius Ford appeals his convictions and sentence from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
I.
{¶2} This appeal involves injuries that Mr. Ford‘s four-month-old daughter (“Daughter“) sustained while in Mr. Ford‘s care and the criminal convictions associated therewith. At trial, Mr. Ford testified that he and C.G. (“Mother“) had a brief relationship that resulted in Mother becoming pregnant. Mr. Ford and Mother‘s relationship ended prior to Daughter‘s birth, and Mr. Ford admitted that he only saw Daughter “like every blue moon * * * [and] not that much.”
{¶3} During a visit to Mother‘s apartment, Mr. Ford gave Daughter two baths. The first bath did not result in injuries to Daughter, but Mr. Ford noticed that the bаth water suddenly became hot when Mother flushed the toilet. Later that evening, Mr. Ford woke up from a nap
{¶4} Aсcording to Mr. Ford, he placed Daughter in a mesh baby seat in the bath tub and used the detachable shower head to wash her. He noticed that the water started to steam, so he immediately turned it оff and left the bathroom to find a towel. Upon finding a blanket, he returned to the bathroom and saw that Daughter‘s skin was peeling. He then picked her up, wrapped her in the blanket, used Mother‘s phone to call 911, and then gave Mother the phone back so that she could speak to the operator. He then placed Daughter on the couch. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ford heard a “thud” аnd saw that Daughter had fallen off of the couch. He picked Daughter up, told her to “quit moving[,]” and waited for EMS to arrive. EMS transported Daughter to the hospital where she received treatment for burns to her face, neck, and shoulders, as well as fractures to her ribs and skull.
{¶5} A Grand Jury indicted Mr. Ford on two counts of felonious assault in violation of
{¶6} At trial, two doctors testified that Daughter‘s burns were consistent with an immersion burn, meaning that Daughter must have been dunked face first into scalding water. They reached this conclusion after noting the sharp line of demarcation on her body (i.e., from
{¶7} Regarding the rib fractures, the doctors testified that this type of injury is consistent with abuse, and is “extraordinarily rare” otherwise. The doctors disagreed, however as to when the rib fractures could have occurred; one opined that they oсcurred within 12 hours or less by the time Daughter was medically evaluated, and the other opined that they could have been up to 10 days old. Both doctors opined that the skull fracture resulted from some sort of impact to Daughter‘s head.
{¶8} The jury ultimately found Mr. Ford guilty of one count of felonious assault relative to the burn injuries Daughter sustained, and two counts of endangering children, one of which relatеd to the burn injuries, the other of which related to the rib and skull injuries. The jury found Mr. Ford not guilty of felonious assault with respect to the rib and skull injuries. The trial court determined that the endangering-children counts merged with the fеlonious-assault count for purposes of sentencing and sentenced Mr. Ford to eight years of incarceration. He now appeals, raising three assignments of error for our review. For ease of consideration, we have combined Mr. Ford‘s first and second assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE DEFENDANT‘S CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
THE DEFENDANT‘S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Ford argues that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. In his second assignment of error, Mr. Ford argues that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. As explained below, we need not address the merits of either assignment of error because Mr. Ford has failed to properly develop arguments in support of his position.
{¶10} We begin our analysis by noting that the appellant bears the burden of establishing error on appeal. In re J.S., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28154, 2016-Ohio-5120, ¶ 12.
{¶11} Here, aside from providing the applicable standards of review, Mr. Ford has cited no authority in support of his position. Instead, both assignments of error contain conclusory statements and Mr. Ford‘s counsel‘s own apparent theories as to how the evеnts took place. For example, the crux of Mr. Ford‘s argument is that no direct evidence existed to support his convictions, yet he cites no law to indicate that direct evidence is rеquired – or, conversely, that circumstantial evidence is insufficient – for purposes of establishing the underlying crimes. Presumably, this is because the law states otherwise. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph one of the syllabus (“Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value * * *.“). As this Court has consistently stated, “[i]f an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this [C]ourt‘s duty tо root it out.” Cardone v. Cardone, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 18349, 18673, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2028, * 22 (May 6, 1998), citing
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT SENTENCED THE DEFENDANT TO THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL OF THE RELEVANT SENTENCING FACTORS.
{¶12} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Ford argues that the trial court erred when it imposed a maximum sentence without considеring all of the relevant sentencing factors contained in
{¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court‘s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1;
The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply regarding the offender, and any other relevant factors, as factors indicating that the offender is not likely to commit future crimes:
- Prior to committing the offense, the offender had not been adjudicated a delinquent child.
- Prior to committing the offense, the offender had not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense.
- Prior to committing the offense, the offender had led a law-аbiding life for a significant number of years.
- The offense was committed under circumstances not likely to recur.
- The offender shows genuine remorse for the offense.
{¶14} Mr. Ford asserts that he had no prior juvenile adjudications or adult convictions, and that he shоwed remorse for his conduct. He, therefore, argues that the trial court erred by ignoring these factors and imposing a maximum sentence.
{¶15} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that, where the trial court does not put on the record its consideration of
{¶16} Here, Mr. Ford does not dispute that his sentence falls within the statutory range. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that it considered the nature of the crimes, the harm to Daughtеr, Mr. Ford‘s poor prognosis for benefiting from treatment and making meaningful life changes, his youth, and the reports it received. In its sentencing entry, the trial court indicated that it considered the record, the oral statements, the principles and purposes of sentencing under
III.
{¶18} Demetrius Ford‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Apрeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
MICHAEL J. GOEBL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.