State v. MillerState v. Miller
April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Calvin Nguyen, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Rhys B. Cartwright-Jones, 42 North Phelps Street, Youngstown, OH 44503 (For Defendant-Appellant).
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Noah A. Miller, appeals the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas that sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 54 months following his guilty pleas to two counts of gross sexual imposition.
{¶2} Appellant raises a single assignment of error, contending that the trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence without adequately considering the purposes of felony sentencing under
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶4} On March 15, 2024, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on five felony counts of gross sexual imposition involving his minor daughter. In counts one and two, Appellant was charged with third-degree felonies in violation of
{¶5} On May 28, 2024, the parties entered into a plea agreement in which Appellant agreed to plead guilty to counts one and three in exchange for the State‘s dismissal of counts two, four, and five. The parties agreed to a presentence investigation (“PSI“) and to argue sentence. The trial court held a plea hearing and engaged in a colloquy with Appellant pursuant to
{¶6} On June 18, 2024, Appellant filed a sentencing memorandum requesting no actual incarceration. Appellant asserted the following factors in mitigation: (1) he did
{¶7} On the same date, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Appellant made a statement on his own behalf. Over the State‘s objection, defense counsel read into the record a statement from the victim requesting that her father not be sent to prison. Defense counsel expressed the support of Appellant‘s wife and presented testimony from the chairperson of the support team formed by Appellant‘s church. Defense counsel also made a statement on Appellant‘s behalf reiterating the factors from his sentencing memorandum.
{¶8} In response, the State disputed whether the victim‘s recommendation should be afforded weight, stating that “it would not be uncommon that a child may still love a parent.” The State also disagreed with the defense on the issue of force, stating that the victim was not able to consent due to her age. The State did not recommend any particular sentences.
{¶9} The trial court stated that it considered the purposes and principles of the sentencing statutes, the recidivism and seriousness factors, and all documents and testimony. The court noted that Appellant did not have a criminal history, had led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years, and had shown genuine remorse. However,
{¶10} Appellant timely appealed, raising a single assignment of error.
Assignment of Error and Analysis
{¶11} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error states:
{¶12} “The trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence without adequately considering the statutory mitigating factors and the purposes of felony sentencing under
{¶13}
{¶14}
{¶15} The standard of review for felony sentences is governed by
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.
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:
(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 section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶16} In State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the application of
{¶17} Although
{¶18} Appellant argues that his “maximum sentence” was “otherwise contrary to law” because the trial court “did not properly weigh the statutory factors.” Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court “disregarded significant mitigating evidence,” including Appellant‘s “lack of prior criminal history, genuine remorse, and strong community support.”
{¶19} As an initial matter, neither of Appellant‘s sentences was a “maximum” sentence. Count one was a third-degree felony that carried a maximum prison sentence of 60 months.
{¶21} Appellant‘s argument essentially asks this Court to reweigh the evidence and determine that his sentences are inconsistent with
{¶22} Here, the trial court expressly stated that it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the recidivism and seriousness factors. Although not required to do so, the trial court discussed several statutory factors on the record. Specifically, the trial court found that Appellant did not have a criminal history, had led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years, and had shown genuine remorse but
{¶23} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶24} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.