495 N.E.2d 40 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1985
Defendant-appellant, William Lepley, appeals a sentence of eighteen months in Mansfield Reformatory for violation of R.C.
On March 20, 1984, defendant was sentenced to one-hundred-eighty days in jail after pleading guilty to a reduced charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, R.C.
Defendant assigns as error:
"1. The trial court committed error prejudicial to the defendant when it took into consideration, in imposing the most severe sentence of imprisonment possible, the failure of the defendant to comply with a term of probation, imposed in an earlier case where that term of probation violated the defendant's right to equal protection of the laws under the U.S. Constitution
"2. The trial court committed error, prejudicial to the defendant in imposing a sentence of 18 months incarceration upon the defendant."
Defendant did not appeal his conviction on the charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. yet he now asserts that making payment of the court costs a condition of probation in that case violated his constitutional right to equal protection of the law and that the trial court should not be allowed to take defendant's failure to pay those costs into consideration in imposing sentence on the escape charge.
The proper remedy for alleged errors or irregularities in sentencing, as well as in trial proceedings, is by appeal. In reCopley (1972),
Defendant then complains that the sentence imposed was too severe under the circumstances. But the imposition of a sentence within the limits authorized by the statute rests in the discretion of the trial court. Toledo v. Reasonover (1965),
For the above reasons, defendant's assignments of error are overruled. The conviction is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
QUILLIN and BAIRD, JJ., concur.
*1