State v. LambState v. Lamb
Decided: August 14, 2023
Judgment: Affirmed
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Shawn F. Burns, Reitz, Paul & Shorr, 215 West Garfield Road, Suite 230, Aurora, OH 44202 (For Defendant-Appellant).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Douglas A. Lamb, Jr., appeals the sentencing entry issued following his guilty pleas to the charges of rape and unlawful sexual conduct with his minor child. We affirm.
{¶2} In May 2022, Lamb was charged with three counts of rape, a first-degree felony, in violation of
{¶3} At sentencing, an impact statement letter of the victim was read. The letter indicated that the victim was made to live with Lamb by court order when she was ten years old. The letter further stated that Lamb abused her during the time she lived with him, resulting in a miscarried pregnancy when she was thirteen years old. After the victims statement was read, the state requested the maximum sentence.
{¶4} The defense indicated that Lamb had no significant prior criminal history. The defense acknowledged the horrific nature of the offenses, and emphasized that Lamb had confessed, and then pleaded guilty. Therefore, the victim was not required to endure a trial. Lamb spoke on his behalf, apologized, expressed shame, and acknowledged the harm he had caused. He then indicated that he was exploring counseling.
{¶5} The court responded that Lamb could not understand the harm that he had caused, and indicated that it had reviewed the PSI, statements of counsel, and the impact statement, and only wished it could sentence Lamb to more prison time. The court stated that the benefit Lamb received from confessing and pleading guilty on the two charges was the dismissal of the remaining charges. The court then imposed sentence consisting of an indefinite term of imprisonment of 11 years up to 16.5 years on the rape count and a term of imprisonment of 36 months on the unlawful sexual conduct with a minor count, to run consecutively. Thereafter, the court again expressed that it wished it could give
{¶6} In his first assigned error, Lamb maintains:
The trial court erred in sentencing Defendant-Appellant to the maximum term of imprisonment under Ohio Revised Code §2907.02(A)(2) for the offense of Rape, a felony of the first degree, in that it failed to properly consider and apply the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under Ohio Revised Code §2929.11 and/or the seriousness of the crime and recidivism factors under Ohio Revised Code §2929.12.
{¶7} Lamb contends that the court failed to properly apply the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under
{¶8} Pursuant to
{¶9}
{¶10} A sentence is contrary to law when it is in violation of statute or legal regulations * * *. Meeks at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 34. Thus, [a] sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶11} To the extent that Lamb requests this court reweigh the sentencing factors, the Ohio Supreme Courts holding in Jones precludes such a review. Further, although Lamb contends the trial court failed to specifically discuss rehabilitation, as set forth above, the trial court is not required to make specific findings on the record to comport with its obligation to consider the
It is well-established that consideration of the appropriate factors set forth in
R.C. 2929.11 can be presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows to the contrary. State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1,¶ 243. A trial courts silence regarding the purposes of felony sentencing and/or the seriousness and recidivism factors is not sufficient to affirmatively demonstrate that the court did not comply with the statutes. State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295, 525 N.E.2d 1361 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus ([a] silent record raises the presumption that a trial court considered the factors contained in R.C. 2929.12 ); State v. Cozzone, 2018-Ohio-2249, 114 N.E.3d 601, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.) ([t]he trial court did not explicitly state it consideredR.C. 2929.11 andR.C. 2929.12 when it imposed appellants sentence; however, we presume a trial court consideredR.C. 2929.11 andR.C. 2929.12 from a silent record).
State v. Claar, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2020-P-0058, 2021-Ohio-2180, ¶ 11.
{¶12} Here, Lamb has not affirmatively demonstrated that the trial court failed to comply with
{¶13} In his second assigned error, Lamb contends:
The trial court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence upon Defendant-Appellant pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §2929.14(C)(4) and under Ohio Revised Code §2907.04(A)(B)(3) for the offense of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, a felony of the third degree, in that its findings failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory presumption for concurrent sentences was overcome.
{¶14} As set forth above, our review of felony sentences is governed by
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing courts findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section
2929.14 * * *;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶15} Pursuant to
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offenders conduct.
(c) The offenders history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶16} To impose consecutive terms of imprisonment a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by
{¶17} Here, at sentencing, the trial court ordered the sentences run consecutively, stating:
Im specifically making that finding because consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes and to punish you and they are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendants conduct and to the danger that you pose to the public.
Im finding that this is a course of conduct. This is two or more offenses that were a course of conduct and the harm caused is so great or unusual that a single prison term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of conduct.
{¶18} The findings were incorporated in the sentencing entry as follows:
The Court finds that the consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the Defendant; that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendants conduct and to the danger the Defendant poses to the public.
Also, at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the Defendants conduct[.]
{¶19} Lamb maintains that the trial court failed to reference support for the consecutive sentence findings, necessitating reversal. However, as stated above, a trial court has no obligation to state reasons to support its consecutive sentence findings. Moreover, after review, we cannot say that the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the trial courts findings under
{¶20} The judgment is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.