State v. MathiasState v. Mathias
For Plaintiff-Appellee
R. KYLE WITT
Fairfield County Prosecutor
By: CHRISTOPHER A. REAMER
Assistant County Prosecutor
Fairfield County Prosecutor‘s Office
239 West Main Street, Suite 101
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
For Defendant-Appellant
SCOTT P. WOOD
Condrad/Wood
120 East Main Street, Suite 200
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
{1} Defendant-appellant Richard L. Mathias, Jr. appeals his sentence from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{2} On November 14, 2018, appellant was indicted оn two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of
{3} Thereafter, on November 14, 2019, appellant withdrew his former guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty to one of the counts of gross sexual imposition and the count of disseminating material harmful to juveniles. The remaining count was dismissed. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry of Sentence filed on November 14, 2019, appellant was sentenced to 60 months in prison and fined $2,000.00.
{4} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignmеnt of error on appeal:
{5} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE.”
I
{6} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence on appellant. We disagree.
{7} Pursuant to
{8} “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 reаsonable 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.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{9} As noted by this court in State v. Taylor, 5th Dist. Richland No. 17CA29, 2017-Ohio-8996, ¶ 16:
A trial court‘s imposition of а maximum prison term for a felony conviction is not contrary to law as long as the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considers both the purposеs and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth [in]R.C. 2929.12 . State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 103413 and 103414, 2016-Ohio-5234, ¶ 10, 16.
{10}
{11} (A) A court that sentences an offender for а felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes of felony sentencing
{12} (B) A sеntence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the three overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section, commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.
{13}
{14} As noted by this court in State v. Webb, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-0069, 2019-Ohio-4195, ¶ 17:
Although a trial court must consider the factors in
R.C. 2929.11 and2929.12 , there is no requirement that the court state its reasоns for imposing a maximum sentence, or for imposing a particular sentence within the statutory range. There is no requirement inR.C. 2929.12 that the trial court states on the record that it has cоnsidered the statutory criteriaconcerning seriousness and recidivism or even discussed them. (Citations omitted.)
{15} “The trial court has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings, nor is it rеquired to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute, provided that the necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated into the sentenсing entry.” Id. at ¶ 19.
{16} Appellant, in the case sub judice, concurs that his sentence was within the statutory range. Appellant argues that the trial court did not properly consider the purposеs and principals of felony sentencing under
{17} Initially, we note that a trial court is not bound to follow a sentence that has been recommended by the prosecutor. See, State, ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-3674, 831 N.E.2d 430, ¶ 6.
{18} At the sentencing hearing, there was discussion that the victim was six years old at the time and that appellant was in a position оf trust with the family. The victim was in counseling due to the incidents. Appellant‘s ex-wife, the victim‘s grandmother, stated that the victim was “screaming hysterically at the top of her lungs when she was telling what you [аppellant] had done to her.” Transcript at 26. She told
{19} The victim‘s father told the court that appellant‘s actions had turned his family upside down and that the victim had “cried and screamed for hours. She felt like it was her fаult.” Transcript at 31. He told the court that appellant had taken the victim‘s innocence.
{20} In sentencing appellant, the trial court stated, in relevant part, as follows:
{21} In genеral, the Court must formulate its decision based upon the overriding principles and purposes of felony sentencing, namely, to protect the public from future crime by Mr. Mathias, Jr., and also to punish you, Mr. Mathias, Jr., using the minimum sanctions that the Court determines accomplishes those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state and local government resources.
{22} So to achieve these purposes, the sentencing Court is considering the need for incapacitating you, deterring you, and also rehabilitating you. While I‘m doing those things, I‘m alsо ensuring that your sentence is not based on impermissible purposes; that your sentence is consistent with other similar offenses committed by like offenders, and finally, that your sentence is рroportional to the harm caused and the impact of your misconduct upon A.W. and A.W.‘s family.
{23} You are facing a third-degree felony. That is Count One. So the Court‘s not only considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, but all relevant seriousness and recidivism factors.
{25} So when the Court looks at the conduct, Mr. Mathias, the Court can‘t help but to consider the age of the victim, six years old, six years at the time of the incidences, the long term effects of such misconduct, despicable acts. The Court‘s taking all of that into consideration.
{26} It‘s hard to predict what the long-term consequences are when а person is victimized in this particular fashion.
{27} That‘s something that the family is not going to know the full extent of for years to come.
{28} But you were in a position of great trust by this family. They revered you in many respects, and you took advantage of that trust. And there definitely will be consequences. There‘s no way I‘m giving you just a community control sentence. That‘s not going to happen.
{29} Transcript at 38-40.
{30} In the sentencing entry, the trial court stated that it had considered the principles and purposes of sentencing under
{31} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court considered thе purposes and principles of sentencing (
{32} The assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{33} Accordingly, the judgment of the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur.