2007 Ohio 2579 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2007
Lead Opinion
{¶ 2} The charges arose from two separate instances involving the sale of crack cocaine, via controlled buys, to a confidential informant of the Painesville Police. *2
{¶ 3} Martin was originally given an identical sentence for these offenses on August 24, 2005. This court reversed the judgment entry of sentence, and remanded the matter for resentencing, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster,
{¶ 4} Following his resentencing, Martin timely appealed, assigning the following as error:
{¶ 5} "[1.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to a more-than-the-minimum, consecutive prison term in violation of the Due Process and Ex Post Facto clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
{¶ 6} "[2.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to a more-than-the-minimum, consecutive prison term in violation of defendant-appellant's right to due process.
{¶ 7} "[3.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to a more-than-the-minimum, consecutive prison term based on the Ohio Supreme Court's severance of the offending provisions under Foster, which was an act in violation of the principle of separation of powers.
{¶ 8} "[4.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to a more-than-the-minimum, consecutive prison term contrary to the rule of lenity.
{¶ 9} "[5.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to a more-than-the-minimum, consecutive prison terms contrary to the intent of the Ohio Legislators.
{¶ 10} "[6.] The trial court violated the defendant-appellant's rights to equal protection and due process of law under the
{¶ 11} For discussion purposes, we will consolidate Martin's assignments of error one through five. These assignments of error all challenge the retroactive application of Foster to his sentencing hearing. The arguments raised in support of this position are identical to the arguments raised and rejected in prior decisions of this court. See State v. Green, 11th Dist. Nos. 2005-A-0069 and 2005-A-0070,
{¶ 12} These same arguments have also been consistently rejected by other Ohio appellate districts and federal courts. See State v.Gibson, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-509,
{¶ 13} Martin's first, second, third, fourth and fifth assignments of error are without merit.
{¶ 14} In his sixth assignment of error, Martin argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by failing to consider whether his sentence was consistent with similar crimes committed by similar offenders, as required by R.C.
{¶ 15} The overriding purposes of felony sentencing in Ohio "are to protect the public from future crime by the offender * * * and to punish the offender." R.C. *4
{¶ 16} The statutory range of prison terms for felonies of the first degree is three to ten years. R.C.
{¶ 17} "[I]t is not the trial court's responsibility to research prior sentences from undefined, and largely unavailable, databases before reaching its sentencing decision." State v. Quine, 9th Dist. No. 20968, 2002-Ohio-6987, at ¶ 12. "Thus, the only way for Appellant to demonstrate that his sentence was `inconsistent' * * * is if he establishes that the trial court failed to * * * consider the * * * guidelines contained in [Ohio's sentencing statutes]." Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶ 18} This court has stated that, although "a trial court is required to engage in the analysis set forth by R.C.
{¶ 19} Our review of the sentencing transcript indicates that the trial court considered the relevant sentencing guidelines prior to imposing Martin's sentence of six *5 years for each offense. Since his sentences fall within the statutory range, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence inconsistent with similarly situated offenders.
{¶ 20} For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.
WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, J., concurs,
COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J., concurs in judgment only with a Concurring Opinion.
Concurrence Opinion
{¶ 21} I concur with the majority's result regarding the sixth assignment of error. However, I believe the wrong standard of review is being applied to reach that result. The majority applies an abuse of discretion standard to appellant's sentencing challenge under R.C.
{¶ 22} Consequently, while I concur regarding the disposition of the first five assignments of error, I concur in judgment only regarding the sixth. *1