State v. GrahamState v. Graham
{¶ 2} On July 19, 2003 officers from the Marysville Police Department placed Graham under arrest for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Graham resisted arrest by pulling his arms away and striking out at the police officers. He kicked Patrolman Craig Nicol in the left leg, and was then taken to the ground by Patrolman David Nist. Graham landed on Patrolman Nicol's right leg and knee, and Nicol verbally indicated that he was in pain. Graham acknowledged that he looked Nicol directly in the eye, and then rolled over his leg and deliberately put pressure on the knee.
{¶ 3} Patrolman Nicol was seriously injured as a result of the incident, and required major knee surgery and extensive rehabilitation. He missed almost four months of work, and incurred medical bills in excess of $43,000.00.
{¶ 4} A bill of information was filed charging Graham with assault in violation of
{¶ 5} At the change of plea hearing, and again at the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor did recommend the twelve-month prison term. The trial court, however, ignored this recommendation and sentenced Graham to the maximum penalty of eighteen months pursuant to
The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant to a maximumsentence for assault.
{¶ 6} An appellate court reviews a trial court's imposition of a maximum sentence for a felony conviction based on a "clear and convincing" degree of proof.
{¶ 7} Graham presents two arguments that the trial court erred in giving him a maximum sentence: (1) the trial court did not inform him before the plea that he was not going to accept the recommendation of the prosecutor, and (2) the trial court did not specifically state its reasons for imposing the maximum sentence.
{¶ 8} Before accepting a guilty plea, Ohio
{¶ 9} However, when non-constitutional rights are involved, the Ohio Supreme Court has applied a liberal "substantial compliance" test to determine if the court complied with
{¶ 10} The question before this Court is whether the trial court substantially complied with
(2) In felony cases the court . . . shall not accept a plea of guiltyor no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doingall of the following: (a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, withthe understanding of the nature of the charges and the maximum penaltyinvolved. . . .
{¶ 11} First, Graham argues that the trial judge has a "duty to inform" the defendant that he will not follow the prosecutor's recommendation before accepting a guilty plea. However, Graham cites no legal authority for this proposition. Moreover, "[i]t is well-established that a trial court is not bound to accept a sentence recommendation proffered by the prosecution." State v. Kitzler, Wyandot App. No. 16-02-06,
{¶ 12} Accordingly, the trial court substantially complied with the requirements of
{¶ 13} Second, Graham argues that his sentence was invalid because the trial court did not inform him at the sentencing hearing of its reasons for imposing the maximum sentence. Ohio law provides that "a trial court is obligated to make certain findings prior to sentencing a defendant to a maximum sentence." State v. Martin (1999)
{¶ 14}
Except as provided in division (G) of this section or in Chapter 2925.of the Revised Code, the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for afelony may impose the longest prison term authorized for the offensepursuant to division (A) of this section only upon offenders who committedthe worst forms of the offense, [and] upon offenders who pose thegreatest likelihood of committing future crimes. . . .
When making a determination under
{¶ 15} In regards to
{¶ 16} The court was then required to make a finding under
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, the trial court made the necessary findings required under
Judgment Affirmed. Cupp, P.J. and Bryant, J., concur.