{¶ 2} On May 25, 2007, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted appellant on 115 counts, which included various counts of aggravated theft under R.C.
{¶ 3} The charges stemmed from appellant's conduct over 14 years while she worked for the Cuyahoga County Department of Employment and Family Services. During that time, appellant improperly used her positiоn to issue herself public assistance benefits for which she did not qualify.
{¶ 4} On May 30, 2007, appellant pleaded not guilty. On April 28, 2008, she retracted her not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to the following: one count of aggravated theft under R.C.
{¶ 5} Upon accepting appellant's guilty plеas, as outlined above, the trial court proceeded directly to sentencing. Appellant received eight years on the aggravated theft conviction (Count 2), eighteen months on each conviction of identity fraud (Counts 49 through 69), fivе years on each tampering with records conviction (Counts 70 and 71), and one year on each conviction of unauthorized use of a computer (Counts 113 and 114). Count 2 was to run consecutive to Counts 49 through 69; Counts 49 through 69 were to run conseсutive to Count 70, and concurrent with each other; Count 70 was to run consecutive to Count 71; and Counts 113 and 114 were to run concurrent with each other, and consecutive to Counts 2, 49 through 69, 70, and 71. Appellant received an aggregate sentenсe of 20 years and six months in prison and three years of postrelease control. The trial judge also ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $864,131.91.
{¶ 8} Appellant argues that "her sentence is inconsistent with or disproportionate to similar crimes committed by similar offenders." More specifically, she "claims that her sentence of 20 years six months is disproportionate to sentеnces imposed by Ohio courts for similar theft/fraud offenses." She further contends that "the trial court abused its discretion and improperly imposed maximum consecutive sentences when the sentencing factors and guidelines set forth in R.C.
{¶ 9} "A defendant's sentence will not be disturbed on appeal unless the reviewing court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the sentеnce or that the sentence is contrary to law. Clear and convincing evidence is that which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." (Internal citations omitted.) State v.Tenbrook, Cuyahoga App. No. 89424,
{¶ 10} Thе Ohio Supreme Court has held that "trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, *6
consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences." State v. Foster,
{¶ 11} After Foster, a trial court is no longer required to make findings or give reasons at the sentencing hearing. State v.Dowell, Cuyahoga App. No. 88864,
{¶ 12} Under R.C.
{¶ 13} Under R.C.
{¶ 14} In State v. Oko, Cuyahoga App. No. 87539,
{¶ 15} Here, the transcript demonstrates that the trial judge properly considered R.C.
{¶ 16} Under R.C.
{¶ 17} A careful review of the record demonstrates that the trial judge properly considered R.C.
{¶ 18} Although we have found that the trial court did not have to make findings, and did appropriately consider the applicable statutes, appellant argues that her sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposеd in similar cases. "R.C.
{¶ 19} In State v. Ashley, Lake App. No. 2006-L-134,
{¶ 20} Here, before sentencing, appellant presented a list of cases to the court that she felt illustrated her argument that similar offenders received less harsh sentences. The trial judge indicated that she had reviеwed the cases. The *9 prosecutor was able to distinguish each case from the case at bar. Thereafter, the judge explained her reasoning for determining that each case was not truly similar to appellant's case. These cases included one where a defendant pleaded guilty to only one third degree felony; one where a defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence; one where a defendant stole different amounts of mоney; and one where there were felonies of different degrees. In other words, the trial judge found that none of the alleged similar cases were actually similar at all.
{¶ 21} We find that the trial court's sentence in this case is not contrary tо law. The trial judge considered the applicable statutes and determined that none of appellant's proffered cases were similar to her case. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 23} Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not оrder a presentence investigation report and then imposed a sentence without any prior background information. This argument is without merit.
{¶ 24} Under R.C.
{¶ 25} Under Crim. R. 32.2, "[i]n felony cases the court shall, and in misdemeanor cases the court may, order a presentence investigation and report before imposing community control sanctions or granting probation."
{¶ 26} In State v. Exline, Cuyahoga App. No. 87945,
{¶ 27} Here, as in Exline, supra, the court did not impose community control sanctions; therefore, it was not required to order a presentenсe investigation. Further, for the reasons discussed in the first assignment of error, it is clear that the trial court did not impose a "sentence without any prior background information." Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is overrulеd.
{¶ 29} Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it imposed restitution without inquiring as to whether appellant had the ability tо pay. This argument is without merit.
{¶ 30} Initially, we note that appellant did not object to the amount of restitution in the trial court, and therefore, has waived this argument. See State v. Rini (Apr. 10, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 69489;State v. Hamann (1993),
{¶ 31} Under R.C.
{¶ 32} Accordingly, appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentencе.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS; CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY