State v. GuyState v. Guy
John F. Kirwan, for appellant.
* * * * *
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas that found appellant guilty of two counts of felonious assault in violation of
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following assignments of error:
- The trial court failed to apply
ORC 2953.08(A)(1)(b) in imposing the maximum consecutive sentences. - The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to the maximum sentence of 8 years on each count and running each count consecutive for a total sentence of 16 years. For two or more offenses arising out of a single incident.
- The trial court erred in refusing to consider
2929.1(C)(1)(2) and (4) in sentencing defendant to consecutive maximum sentences. - The trial court failed to follow
ORC 2929.41 andORC 5145.01 when it sentenced defendant to consecutive maximum sentences.
{¶ 3} The undisputed facts relevant to the issues raised on appeal are as follows. On March 18, 2011, appellant was indicted on four counts of felonious assault and two counts of attempted murder in connection with an incident that occurred on February 18, 2011, in which two men were stabbed outside a Clyde, Ohio, bar. On May 18, 2011, appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of felonious assault, second degree felonies, and the remaining counts were dismissed. Appellant was sentenced to eight years on each count to be served consecutively.
{¶ 4} In support of his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the sentencing court failed to follow
{¶ 5} Appellant‘s second, third and fourth assignments of error argue that the trial court improperly imposed maximum, consecutive sentences and will be considered together.
{¶ 6} It is well-established that we cannot overturn a trial court order imposing a felony sentence unless we find an abuse of discretion. As the Supreme Court declared in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 11, appellate courts reviewing felony sentences must apply a two-step approach. First, they must examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court‘s decision in imposing the term of imprisonment shall be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Kalish, supra.
{¶ 7} “The term abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment. It implies that the court‘s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). Additionally, the standard of review on appeal is that of deference to the decision of the trier of fact. Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984).
{¶ 8} As established by State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 100, the trial court is vested with full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range without a requirement that it issue specific reasons or findings prior to imposition of such a sentence. However, the trial court must still consider
{¶ 9} As the record herein reflects, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant to a maximum consecutive term of imprisonment. Both the transcript and sentencing entry demonstrate that the trial court carefully considered the record, the oral statements of the victims and family members, the presentence investigation, and the principals and purposes of sentencing as required under
{¶ 10} Appellant also argues that the two eight-year sentences should be served concurrently because “although the two offenses were separate they occurred out of the same incident.” Two men were stabbed by appellant, albeit within a very brief time frame in the same location. Appellant stabbed one victim and then directed his violent
{¶ 11} Based on the foregoing, we cannot find that the maximum, consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court were unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Pursuant to
{¶ 12} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Peter M. Handwork, J.
Arlene Singer, P.J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
_______________________________
JUDGE
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.