State v. HoukState v. Houk
Decided: December 30, 2021
Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Kristi L. Winner, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Jamie R. Eck, Assistant Public Defender, 125 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Stephen T. Houk (“Mr. Houk”), appeals from the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced him to 36 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to one count of domestic violence, a third-degree felony.
{¶2} Mr. Houk contends his sentence is contrary to law because the trial court erred when it imposed the maximum prison term, and further, the court’s findings under
{¶4} Finding Mr. Houk’s sole assignment of error to be without merit, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶5} After being bound over from the Painesville Municipal Court, Mr. Houk was charged by way of information with one count of domestic violence in violation of
{¶6} Mr. Houk and the victim (“A.P.”) were living together with their child and A.P.’s two children from a prior relationship. Mr. Houk also has another child from a previous relationship who lives with her aunt in Cleveland, Ohio.
{¶7} At the plea hearing, the prosecutor stated the facts of the incident for the record, reviewing that on March 6, 2021, in Madison Township, Lake County, officers
{¶8} The trial court accepted Mr. Houk’s guilty plea to the one count of domestic violence, found him guilty, and set the matter for a presentence investigation, a victim impact statement, and a drug and alcohol assessment.
{¶9} Several weeks later at the sentencing hearing, A.P. and her grandmother spoke on Mr. Houk’s behalf and asked the court to consider community control sanctions in lieu of prison. Mr. Houk also apologized to A.P. and the court, citing his problems with alcohol that began after a friend passed away in his arms from an overdose of drugs. Mr. Houk stated that he “was just showing you how sincere I am,” which prompted the court to state he was “not sincere.” Mr. Houk questioned the court as to his sincerity, and the court in turn, questioned Mr. Houk as to what “no face no case” means to him, referring to a recorded jail house call between Mr. Houk and A.P.
{¶10} The court also questioned Mr. Houk as to his previous domestic violence convictions, in which Mr. Houk assaulted his first wife, and a felonious assault from an incident in the Cuyahoga County jail. The court inquired, “[W]hy are you on the phone and telling [A.P.] what to put in the letter and say in Court?” The court decided to delay sentencing so that it could further review the jail house calls.
{¶12} Before imposing its sentence and in the sentencing entry, the trial court stated that it reviewed the presentence report, the drug and alcohol evaluation, the victim impact statement, letters sent by Mr. Houk, as well as the statements made during the hearing, in addition to “all aspects of
{¶13} Mr. Houk raises one assignment of error for our review:
{¶14} “The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to the maximum prison term of thirty-six months, as the trial court’s findings with respect to
Felony Sentencing Standard of Review
{¶15} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Houk contends his sentence is contrary to law because the trial court’s findings pursuant to
{¶17} “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.
{¶18} “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 resentencing. The appellate court’s standard of 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:
{¶19} “(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division (B) or (D) of section
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;{¶20} “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”
{¶21} “‘Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Marcum at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶22} The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, recently clarified that contrary to the “dicta” in Marcum,
{¶23} Thus, our review of Mr. Houk’s argument that the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of
{¶24} We note that Mr. Houk expresses some confusion in his assignment of error as to what constitutes “contrary to law” pursuant to
R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12
{¶25}
{¶26}
{¶27} To “achieve those purposes,” the court “shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.”
{¶28}
{¶29} The trial court possesses broad discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing within the statutory guidelines. State v. Phifer, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2020-T-0010, 2020-Ohio-4694, ¶ 52;
{¶30} Mr. Houk acknowledges that the trial court stated both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry that it considered the purposes and principles of
{¶31} The record before us reveals Mr. Houk’s violent criminal history against others, which has spanned over the last decade; his likelihood to reoffend; the victim’s severe injuries; and his lack of remorse, as evidenced by the troubling jail house calls with A.P. in which he threatened her in a menacing manner and encouraged her to flee to New Mexico so that he could evade charges. Thus, even if this court could independently review and weigh the evidence, it cannot be said the sentence is not supported by this record, and there is nothing in the record to suggest Mr. Houk’s sentence is contrary to law.
{¶32} Finding Mr. Houk’s assignment of error to be without merit, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.