STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PATRICK J. HILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 16-15-06
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY
November 16, 2015
2015-Ohio-4724
Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. 14-CR-0162, Judgment Affirmed
Howard A. Elliott for Appellant
Douglas D. Rowland for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Patrick J. Hill (Hill) appeals the May 21, 2015, judgment of the Wyandot County Common Pleas Court sentencing Hill to 8 years in prison after Hill pled guilty to one count of Felonious Assault in violation of
{¶2} On October 15, 2014, Hill was indicted for Aggravated Robbery in violation of
{¶3} On October 16, 2014, Hill was arraigned and he pled not guilty to the charges. (Doc. No. 28).
{¶4} On April 7, 2015, a change-of-plea hearing was held wherein Hill agreed to plead guilty to Felonious Assault in violation of
{¶6} On May 20, 2015, a sentencing hearing was held. At the sentencing hearing Hill gave a brief statement requesting mercy from the trial court, stating that he was drunk and high at the time of the incident, and stating that he was sorry for the incident. Hill‘s counsel then requested leniency from the court, specifically seeking a sentence on the lower-to-middle range of the 2-8 year possible prison term.
{¶7} The State recommended that Hill receive a maximum 8-year prison term based on Hill‘s significant criminal history, the fact that the victim had
{¶8} The trial court then proceeded to sentence Hill and began by reciting Hill‘s significant criminal history, the fact that Hill was an admitted drug addict and had been for a long time, the fact that Hill had no job, owed a significant amount of child support, that he attacked a vulnerable adult, that he “minimized” his crime, and that the victim suffered serious physical and emotional harm. Following these findings, the trial court ordered Hill to serve a maximum 8-year prison term. A judgment entry memorializing Hill‘s sentence was filed May 21, 2015.
{¶9} It is from this judgment that Hill appeals, asserting the following assignments of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN SENTENCING THE APPELLANT TO A MAXIMUM PRISON TERM BY BASING ITS DECISION ON A FACT THAT WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE STATUTE BY THE OHIO LEGISLATURE WHEN IT DETERMINED THE LEVEL OF OFFENSE.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN DETERMINING THE APPELLANT HAS THE GREATEST LIKELIHOOD OF RECIDIVISM IN MAKING THAT FINDING IN IMPOSING SENTENCE HEREIN.
First Assignment of Error
{¶10} In Hill‘s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred by “basing its decision” to sentence him to a maximum prison term on the fact that the victim suffered serious physical harm as a result of the Felonious Assault. Specifically, Hill argues that the trial court improperly relied on the serious physical harm element of Felonious Assault as the basis for imposing a maximum prison term.
{¶11} Trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range. State v. Saldana, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-12-09, 2013-Ohio-1122, ¶ 20. Since Hill was convicted of a second degree felony, the relevant prison sentence range is between 2 and 8 years.
{¶12}
{¶13} In this case, Hill claims that when the trial court sentenced him, the trial court improperly relied upon the fact that the victim suffered serious physical harm when serious physical harm was already an element of Felonious Assault. While the trial court did mention that the victim suffered serious physical and emotional harm, these findings were among a litany of other findings made by the trial court to support its sentence.
{¶14} When the trial court proceeded to sentence Hill, it began by reciting portions of Hill‘s criminal history, which included a prior “felonious Assault and Trafficking in Drugs, both Felonies [for which Hill] was sent to prison. Six and a half pages of criminal record follow that, and include convictions for: Domestic Violence, Assault, Resisting Arrest, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Drugs, and Drug Paraphernalia.”3 (May 20, 2015, Tr. at 12-13).
{¶15} After reciting a portion of Hill‘s criminal history, the trial court recited that Hill had previously been on supervision, and that he had previously been to multiple treatment centers including the “Betty Jane Center,” the “Crossroads Halfway House,” “West Central CBCF,” and the “Marion Area
{¶16} The trial court next recited that Hill had no job and that he owed “thousands of dollars” in child support. We would note that the “thousands of dollars” figure stated by the trial court that Hill was in arrears is perhaps an understatement. The PSI indicated that Hill was in arrears of at least $80,000 for his four children.
{¶17} The trial court then went on to state,
More troubling is the Defendant‘s victim was a vulnerable adult, a trusting soul, who has overcome so much, so many obstacles put in his life, to be a productive, hard[-]working, kind and trusting person; a person whose vulnerability the defendant used to come hang out with him, and when he got the victim alone he savagely beat him, hitting and kicking him in the head, even when he was down.
Defendant minimized what he did, saying he heard his victim only suffered from a couple black eyes. An intercranial [sic] bleed is more than a couple black eyes.
Defendant‘s victim suffered serious physical and emotional harm.
Defendant shows no real remorse for his victim, dismissing what he did because he was high on alcohol and drugs.
(Tr. at 13-14). The trial court then concluded by ordering Hill to serve a maximum 8-year prison term.
{¶19} On the record before us we cannot find that the trial court erred in sentencing Hill to a maximum prison term, or that serious physical harm was the basis underlying its decision. Therefore, Hill‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶20} In Hill‘s second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred in finding that Hill had the “greatest likelihood of recidivism.” Hill argues that the record does not support that Hill had the “greatest” likelihood of recidivism instead of merely a “great” likelihood or a likelihood of recidivism.
{¶21} The statement Hill refers to in this assignment of error comes from the following excerpt after the trial court had announced that it was sentencing Hill to a maximum prison term of 8 years.
THE COURT: * * * This is a maximum term and it is because he has committed the worst form of the offense because of the vulnerability of his victim –
THE DEFENDANT: Bullshit.
THE COURT: -- And he poses the greatest likelihood of recidivism given his criminal history –
THE DEFENDANT: Bullshit.
(Tr. at 15).
{¶22} Even if we were to determine that the trial court erred in using the word “greatest” rather than merely using a “great” likelihood of recidivism or in using the phrase “worst form of the offense,” which is no longer a pertinent statutory factor for this offense, the record is replete with other factors that support the trial court‘s decision to impose a maximum sentence in this case as was stated in the previous assignment of error.4 Therefore Hill‘s argument on this issue is not well-taken, and his second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶23} Having found no error prejudicial to Hill in the particulars assigned, Hill‘s assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Wyandot County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ROGERS, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/jlr