STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DAVID FRAZIER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 17-11-06; CASE NO. 17-11-07
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY
October 24, 2011
2011-Ohio-5445
Appeals from Shelby County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court Nos. 08CR00306 and 10CR00125
James R. Gudgel for Appellant
Jeffrey J. Beigel for Appellee
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, David Frazier (Frazier), appeals the judgments of the Common Pleas Court of Shelby County, Ohio, sentencing him to an aggregate sentence of eight years and nine months imprisonment following guilty convictions on four felony charges.
{¶2} On November 13, 2008, Frazier was indicted for one count of burglary in violation of
{¶3} The 2008 case proceeded to a jury trial on December 21-22, 2010. At the conclusion of the trial, Frazier was found guilty of the sole count of burglary, a felony of the second degree. Thereafter, on January 14, 2011, Frazier entered into
{¶4} On February 11, 2011, Frazier was sentenced in both cases. In the 2008 case, Frazier was sentenced to six years in prison. In the 2010 case, Frazier was sentenced to eleven months in prison on each of the three counts. All of Frazier‘s sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to one another for an aggregate sentence of eight years and nine months. These appeals followed, and Frazier now asserts one assignment of error for our review.
THE GRANTING OF CONSENTIVE [sic] SENTENCES IS EXCESSIVE AND IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Frazier contends that the trial court abused its discretion in not considering and making the specific findings required by
{¶6} Our review of this assignment of error begins by noting that an appellate court must conduct a meaningful review of the trial court‘s sentencing decision. State v. Daughenbaugh, 3rd Dist. No. 16-07-07, 2007-Ohio-5774, ¶ 8, citing State v. Carter, 11th Dist. No. 2003-P-0007, 2004-Ohio-1181. A meaningful
Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774, at ¶ 8, citing Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181, at ¶ 44;
{¶7} In State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that [t]rial courts [now] have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences. Id. at paragraph seven of the syllabus. In fact, the Court in Foster, specifically found that the requirements imposed by
{¶8} Although the trial court is given full discretion in sentencing pursuant to Foster, the trial court must still consider the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which are to protect the public from future crimes by the offender and to punish the offender.
{¶9} Here, Frazier‘s sentence of six years for his second degree felony offense of burglary was within the statutorily permissible range of two to eight years. See
{¶11} The trial court was not required to make the findings Frazier contends it must have made before imposing consecutive sentences. Thus, the trial court did not err in this regard. Moreover, from the language contained in the judgment entries of sentencing, the trial court complied with the statutory sentencing requirements. In fact, Frazier has provided this Court with no evidence to the contrary, as the record is devoid of any transcript of the sentencing hearing, contrary to the mandates of App.R. 9 and App.R. 16(A)(6-7).
{¶12} For all these reasons, the assignment of error is overruled, and the judgments of the Common Pleas Court of Shelby County, Ohio, are affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr