State of Ohio v. Robert Edward Neal
Court of Appeals No. L-16-1267
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Decided: December 8, 2017
[Cite as State v. Neal, 2017-Ohio-8923.]
SINGER, J.
Trial Court No. CR0201602632
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert E. Neal, appeals his sentence from the October 12, 2016 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, in which he was sentenced to 18 months incarceration for domestic violence. Finding no error, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following assignment of error:
- The trial court did not comply with
R.C. 2929.11 and2929.12 in sentencing Appellant to 18 months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.
Facts
{¶ 3} On August 18, 2016, appellant physically assaulted the victim. Appellant was the victim‘s estranged husband, and he assaulted her in a jealous rage after witnessing her sitting in her enclosed porch with a male friend. The victim suffered resulting injuries, including abrasions on her ear and forehead.
{¶ 4} On September 7, 2016, appellant was charged with two counts: domestic violence in violation of
{¶ 5} The indictment included appellant‘s previous conviction of domestic violence on May 16, 2016, in Toledo Municipal Court case No. CRB-16-05490-0102. Appellant was on postrelease control for this conviction when he assaulted the victim in August 2016.
{¶ 6} On September 13, 2016, appellant pled not guilty to both charges. On October 11, 2016, appellant withdrew his plea and entered a plea of no contest to the domestic violence charge. The state agreed to nolle the burglary charge. A signed
{¶ 7} Appellant admitted to the domestic violence charge in open court, stating: “I would like to apologize to my wife for putting my hands on her and letting my emotions get the best of me, you know, I would like for her to tell my kids that I‘m sorry for what happened and I wish it didn‘t happen[.]”
{¶ 8} The trial court accepted the facts and plea, found appellant guilty, and proceeded to sentence appellant. Appellant waived his presentence investigation, so the court sentenced him at the October 11, 2016 hearing.
{¶ 9} Appellant was sentenced to 18 months in prison, three years discretionary postrelease control, and imposition of court costs. The court stated in open court and in its entry that it considered the sentencing criteria and applicable sentencing statutes. The entry was journalized October 12, 2016, and appellant now timely appeals.
Legal Analysis
{¶ 10} In his sole assigned error, appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence of 18 months. Appellee contends the record supports the sentence under the relevant statutes and the sentence is not contrary to law.
{¶ 11} We review felony sentences under a two-prong approach.
{¶ 12} A sentence is not contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶ 13} Pursuant to
{¶ 14} Here, appellant was sentenced to a prison term of 18 months for his domestic violence conviction. This prison term is within the permissible range. See
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} In carrying out its obligations to impose a sentence consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, the trial court must weigh the factors indicating that the offender‘s conduct is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense under
{¶ 17} We further note that a sentencing court is not required to use any specific language or make specific findings to demonstrate that it considered the applicable sentencing criteria. See State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215, 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000); State v. Thebeau, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-14-017, 2014-Ohio-5598, ¶ 16.
{¶ 18} Here, the court expressly stated in open court that it considered
The Court considered the record, the oral statement, the victim impact statement provided, PSI presentence investigation was waived, as
well as the principles and purposes of sentencing, has balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors. * * * After considering the relevant sections of [the] Ohio Revised Code, I find that the [appellant] is not amenable to community control, and prison is consistent with the principles and purposes of sentencing. It is, therefore, ordered that [appellant] serve a term of 18 months in the state penitentiary as to count two of the indictment.
{¶ 19} Moreover, the sentencing entry states: “Court considered the record, oral statements, any victim impact statement, as well as principles and purposes of sentencing under
{¶ 20} In light of the trial court‘s statements at the hearing, as well as the language contained in the sentencing entry, we conclude that the court complied with its obligations under
{¶ 21} Furthermore, the sentence imposed was supported in the record.
{¶ 22} More specifically, the record reveals that appellant caused the victim injuries to her head and ear, that the victim was treated by medical personnel due to the violence, and that appellant had another domestic violence conviction and was on postrelease control for assaulting the victim earlier that year.
{¶ 24} The trial court then expressed its disappointment with appellant‘s repeat offending prior to sentencing, stating:
[APPELLANT]: Like I said, I made a mistake putting my hands on her when I seen (sic) that man on there. * * * My kids telling me the man been coming over there playing with them, going upstairs with their mother, you know, and I lost it.
THE COURT: That‘s the problem—
[APPELLANT]: And I‘m—
THE COURT: —is you have no right to lose it.
[APPELLANT]: Right, at all, at all though.
THE COURT: That person— you don‘t get it. That person sitting behind you is a free thinking human being—
[APPELLANT]: Yes. THE COURT: —able to make her own decisions, and you have no authority to control her.
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: Which is what you tried to do through violence. That‘s— you have a problem. You need— as they used to say on the street, you need to get a grip. She‘s free. She gets to do what she want[s]. She can date you. She can date other people. If you don‘t like it, your course is to hire a lawyer, go over to domestic relations and get a divorce, not lay hands on her.
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: You should have learned that the first time. You don‘t understand. And I do find that you, in your current frame of mind, you‘re a threat to that poor lady because if she does something you don‘t agree with, the consequence will simply be violence. That was proven in [M]ay, that was proven in August. That results in the following sentence[.]
(Emphases added.).
{¶ 25} Factoring in the above statements, findings and expressed considerations, we hold the trial court record supports the imposed sentence and the sentence is not contrary to law.
{¶ 26} Consequently, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 27} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Arlene Singer, J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
James D. Jensen, P.J.
CONCUR.