STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANA TROY NEAL, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2014-04-031
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY
4/13/2015
[Cite as State v. Neal, 2015-Ohio-1412.]
HENDRICKSON, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2013 CR 00743
R. Daniel Hannon, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F. Benintendi, 302 East Main Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Dana Troy Neal, appeals from his sentence in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas for gross sexual imposition. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} In December 2013, appellant was indicted on one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of
{¶ 3} The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report and scheduled sentencing for April 14, 2014. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that appellant was not amenable to community control sanctions and that prison was consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. Appellant was ordered to serve 18 months in prison on each count of gross sexual imposition, with the prison terms running consecutively to one another for an aggregate prison term of 54 months.
{¶ 4} Appellant timely appealed his sentence, raising two assignments of error.
{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING PRISON TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING.
{¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that a review of the factors set forth in
{¶ 8} We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in
{¶ 9} Appellant was convicted of three counts of gross sexual imposition, felonies of the fourth degree. Although appellant contends that community control sanctions should have been imposed, application of
{¶ 10}
(B)(1)(a) Except as provided in division (B)(1)(b) of this section, if an offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying assault offense, the court shall sentence the offender
to a community control sanction of at least one year‘s duration if all of the following apply: (i) The offender previously has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony offense.
(ii) The most serious charge against the offender at the time of sentencing is a felony of the fourth or fifth degree.
(iii) If the court made a request of the department of rehabilitation and correction pursuant to division (B)(1)(c) of this section, the department, within the forty-five-day period specified in that division, provided the court with the names of, contact information for, and program details of one or more community control sanctions of at least one year‘s duration that are available for persons sentenced by the court.
(iv) The offender previously has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense of violence that the offender committed within two years prior to the offense for which sentence is being imposed.
* * *
(2) If division (B)(1) of this section does not apply, * * * in determining whether to impose a prison term as a sanction for a felony of the fourth or fifth degree, the sentencing court shall comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing under section
2929.11 of the Revised Code and section2929.12 of the Revised Code .
(Emphasis added.) The statute therefore mandates that community control sanctions be imposed for fourth-degree felony offenses when certain requirements are met.
{¶ 12} The purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and to punish the offender.
{¶ 13} The record reflects that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing before determining that appellant was not amenable to available community control sanctions and that community control sanctions were not appropriate in this case. The sentencing entry specifically states that
[t]he court has considered as to each of the counts the record, any information presented pursuant to
R.C. 2929.15(A) , oral statements, victim impact statement, and pre-sentence report, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing underOhio Revised Code Section 2929.11 , and has balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors underOhio Revised Code Section 2929.12 .
{¶ 15} Accordingly, as the record demonstrates that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of
{¶ 16} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶ 17} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 18} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO CONSECUTIVE PRISON TERMS.
{¶ 19} In his second assignment of error, appellant challenges the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing that his 54-month prison sentence was “disproportionate both to the seriousness of [his] conduct and to the danger he poses to the public.” Appellant contends that because the crimes he was convicted of occurred within his home, he is not a “threat to the general public” and that consecutive prison terms were therefore excessive.
{¶ 20} Pursuant to
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code , or was under post-release control for a prior offense.(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses
committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct. (c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 21} “A trial court satisfies the statutory requirement of making the required findings when the record reflects that the court engaged in the required analysis and selected the appropriate statutory criteria.” Setty, 2014-Ohio-2340 at ¶ 113. In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court is not required to provide a word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute or articulate reasons supporting its findings. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 at ¶ 27-29; Setty at ¶ 113. Nevertheless, the record must reflect that the trial court engaged in the required sentencing analysis and made the requisite findings. Id. The court‘s findings must thereafter be incorporated into its sentencing entry. Bonnell at ¶ 37.
{¶ 22} Here, the record reflects that the trial court made the findings required by
THE COURT: The prison term that will be imposed is * * * 54 months, which is 18 months on each of the counts served consecutively. And in imposing those prison sentences consecutively they‘re necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish [appellant]. They‘re not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses to the public.
When you offend against the same person three times, it doesn‘t mean that the harm is less the second and third times. In fact, I think the harm is great each time it is committed, and the harm caused by the multiple offenses is so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of the course of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of [appellant‘s] conduct, and his history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.
{¶ 23} From the trial court‘s statements at the sentencing hearing and the language utilized in the sentencing entry, it is clear that the trial court complied with the dictates of
{¶ 24} We therefore conclude that the information presented at the sentencing hearing, as well as the information contained within the presentence investigation report, supports the trial court‘s findings under
{¶ 25} Appellant‘s second assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶ 26} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.