STATE OF OHIO v. BRAD O. HAMILTON, JR.
No. 102870
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
March 31, 2016
2016-Ohio-1376
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-14-587008-A, CR-14-588246-A, CR-14-588508-A, CR-14-588509-A, CR-14-588510-A, and CR-14-588512-A
BEFORE: Boyle, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Stewart, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 31, 2016
Aaron T. Baker
38109 Euclid Avenue
Willoughby, Ohio 44094
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Mollie Ann Murphy
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{1} Defendant-appellant, Brad O. Hamilton, Jr., appeals his sentence. He raises one assignment of error for our review:
The trial court erred by sentencing appellant to a term of eleven years in prison where its findings were not supported by the record and the trial court failed to give careful and substantial deliberation to the relevant statutory considerations.
{2} Finding no merit to his argument, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Procedural History and Factual Background
{3} Hamilton was originally charged in juvenile court with several counts of burglary and attempted murder. The juvenile court, however, transferred Hamilton to adult court on a mandatory bindover after determining there was probable cause to charge Hamilton with attempted murder.
{4} The Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Hamilton in six separate cases in July and August 2014. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-587008-A, Hamilton was indicted on eight counts, including two counts of attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, one count of discharging a firearm on or near prohibited places, and three counts of aggravated rioting for events that occurred in March 2014. All counts contained one- and three-year firearm specifications.
{5} In the remaining five cases, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-14-588246-A, CR-14-588508-A, CR-14-588509-A, CR-14-588510-A, and CR-14-588512-A, the state alleged that Hamilton broke into five houses from March 2013 to October 2013, and stole
{6} In February 2015, Hamilton entered into a plea agreement with the state on an amended indictment in all six cases. In Case Nos. CR-14-588246-A, CR-14-588508-A, CR-14-588509-A, CR-14-588510-A, and CR-14-588512-A, Hamilton pleaded guilty to burglary in each case in violation of
{7} In Case No. CR-14-587008-A, Hamilton pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault in violation of
{8} The trial court sentenced Hamilton on all six cases at the same sentencing hearing. In Case No. CR-14-588246-A, the trial court sentenced Hamilton to three years in prison. In Case No. CR-14-588508-A, the trial court sentenced Hamilton to five years in prison. In Case No. CR-14-588509-A, the trial court sentenced Hamilton to two years in prison. In Case No. 14-588510-A, the trial court sentenced Hamilton to four years in prison. And in Case No. CR-14-588512-A, the trial court sentenced Hamilton to six years in prison. The trial court ordered that the sentences in these five cases be served concurrent to each other.
{9} In Case No. CR-14-587008-A, the trial court sentenced Hamilton to an aggregate of five years in prison: one year for the firearm specification to be served prior to and consecutive to four years for felonious assault; five years for discharging the firearm on or near prohibited places; and 18 months for aggravated rioting, all to be served concurrent to each other.
{10} The trial court then reviewed the factors and made findings under
II. R.C. 2929.12; Seriousness and Recidivism Factors
{11} Hamilton argues that the trial court “failed to give ‘careful and substantial deliberation to the relevant statutory considerations‘” under
{12} We review felony sentences in accordance with the standard of review set forth in
The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand
the matter to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The appellate court‘s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: ***
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{13} Therefore, we presume the sentence imposed by the trial court is correct absent evidence that it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Sherman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97840, 2012-Ohio-3958, ¶ 14.
{14} A sentencing court must consider the principles and purposes of sentencing in
{15} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard from Hamilton‘s defense counsel first. Defense counsel informed the court that Hamilton did not have a great
{16} Hamilton told the court that he wanted to apologize and express his remorse. Hamilton stated that his friend is the one who got shot in the riot. Hamilton explained that he did not shoot his friend, but that he was part of the riot. Hamilton further stated that when he shot his gun, “all [he] did was actually shoot back.” Hamilton explained to the court that he committed the burglaries to help his grandmother pay the bills and to support his drug habit. Hamilton said that he has had a hard life; he had not lived with his mother in three or four years, and had not seen her in over a year. He said that he does not have a father figure either because his father has been gone since he was seven years old. Hamilton also said that it was hard growing up in his neighborhood too. On the day the riot broke out, Hamilton told the court that he was on his way to “community service,” and he got caught up in the riot. He explained that he was just “backing up [his] friend.”
{17} Hamilton‘s grandmother also spoke to the court on Hamilton‘s behalf. She said that Hamilton was a good kid who got mixed up with the “wrong people at the wrong time.” She asked the court to give Hamilton “another chance.”
{18} The state spoke to the court. The state indicated that although Hamilton said that he did not shoot his friend, there was a witness who said that Hamilton is the one who fired the gun. There was also gunshot residue on Hamilton‘s hands.
{19} The state‘s witness then spoke to the court. He stated that he saw Hamilton shoot the victim, and then saw Hamilton “go over a fence” when the police arrived. The witness said that he held the victim until the police came.
{20} The trial court said that in sentencing Hamilton, it considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under
{21} The trial court stated that it was unfortunate that this was “somewhat of a repeating pattern,” of a son facing incarceration, following in his father‘s footsteps.
{22} The trial court noted that he was not judging Hamilton‘s character, stating that he believed Hamilton‘s grandmother that Hamilton was a good person. But the court explained that Hamilton did some bad things where people got harmed.
{23} The court reviewed the burglary cases, stating that Hamilton broke into houses and stole television sets, Playstations, clothing, watches, computers, and shoes. The court indicated that it was not going to order restitution because it did not receive any information from the victims or the state regarding restitution. The court told Hamilton
{24} The court then discussed the felonious assault case. The court stated that it has heard from others that they were not really shooting, but “shooting back.” The court told Hamilton that he should not have had a gun at all. The court explained to Hamilton that if he was “shooting back,” he was shooting at someone, a person who could get seriously harmed. And the court pointed out that someone, the victim, was shot in this case when Hamilton “shot back.”
{25} The court found that a prison sentence was necessary to protect the public and not demean the seriousness of the offenses. The court then imposed the sentence for each offense in all of the cases. The court considered the
{26} In this case, the trial court was not silent about considering the relevant statutory factors; it explicitly stated that it considered the principles and purposes of
{27} Hamilton‘s argument, that the trial court failed to consider his age, has no merit. Hamilton‘s defense counsel argued that Hamilton was young, and that Hamilton had a hard upbringing. While that may be true, the trial court also had to consider the harm suffered by the victims in this case, as well as the fact that Hamilton had an extensive criminal history as a juvenile; this was not Hamilton‘s “first case” as he claimed. And in the present case, Hamilton was transferred to adult criminal court on a mandatory bindover. Once there, he was considered an adult for sentencing purposes and was subject to the full range of adult penalties.
{28} Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly considered the relevant statutory factors under
{29} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR