State v. GreerState v. Greer
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Stephen A. Yarbrough, Mark L. Pietrykowski, Thomas J. Osowik
Amanda A. Krzystan, for appellant.
* * * * *
YARBROUGH, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jacob R. Greer, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to a 54-month prison term following a no contest plea to aggravated vehicular homicide, pursuant to
{¶ 2} On July 2, 2015, appellant was travelling between 63-78 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone when his vehicle collided into the rear of another vehicle, which had stopped at a stop light. The impact of the collision killed the driver of the other vehicle. Toxicology reports concluded that appellant had trace amounts of alprazolam, a prescription anti-anxiety medication for which he was not prescribed, as well as marijuana metabolite in his system at the time of the accident.
{¶ 3} Appellant was indicted by a Lucas County Grand Jury for aggravated vehicular homicide, pursuant to
{¶ 4} On January 12, 2016, appellant‘s sentencing hearing was held. At sentencing, both appellant and appellant‘s trial counsel made statements on appellant‘s behalf. The state of Ohio remained silent, in compliance with a plea agreement, and the victim‘s mother made a victim impact statement. The court noted that it had taken into consideration everything it must consider pursuant to statute and rule, not limited to
B. Assignments of Error
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2929.11 ET SEQ.
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN READING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION INTO THE RECORD AND IN OPEN COURT WHEN THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT IS A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT.
II. Analysis
{¶ 6} For his first assignment of error, appellant argues that his sentence was excessive, in that it did not comply with
{¶ 7} In State v. Behrendt, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1135, 2016-Ohio-969, ¶ 6, we clarified the standard of review for felony sentencing issues:
We review felony sentences under the two-prong approach set forth in
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) .R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) that the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) ofsection 2929.13 , division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section2929.14 , or division (I) of section2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; or (b) that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id.
{¶ 8} At the outset, we would note that appellant‘s 54-month sentence is within the statutory range for a felony of the third degree.
{¶ 9} Appellant specifically argues that the court failed to properly consider all factors listed in
{¶ 10} Trial courts have full discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory range without a requirement that it issue specific reasons or findings prior to imposition of such a sentence. State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1, ¶ 37. However, although the court is no longer compelled to make findings and give reasons at the sentencing hearing, the court must carefully consider the applicable statutes for felony sentencing, including
{¶ 11} A sentencing court is not required to use any specific language or make specific findings to demonstrate that it considered the applicable seriousness and
The Court has considered the record, oral statements, any victim impact statement and presentence report prepared, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under
R.C. 2929.11 , and has balanced the seriousness, recidivism, and other relevant factors underR.C. 2929.12 .
{¶ 12} Specifically, the court noted, and it is undisputed, that the victim, a young man, died as a result of appellant‘s actions. This finding is applicable to
{¶ 13} There is no specific balancing test to apply to
{¶ 14} We find that appellant‘s 54-month sentence was supported by the record and was not otherwise contrary to law. Therefore, appellant‘s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 16} Appellant is correct in his assertion that a PSI is not a public record, as defined in
{¶ 17} In the cases, sub judice, the PSI was not disclosed to the public subsequent to sentencing.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, appellant‘s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 19} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs are hereby assessed to appellant in accordance with App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. CONCUR. _______________________________
JUDGE